Tineo

cruise restore

cruise_restore

DestructiveIdempotent

Preview and commit cruise restore operations atomically. First call cruise_get for expectedVersion. Omit confirmationToken to preview, show the changes to the user, then repeat the unchanged request with its token only after the user approves. Reuse idempotencyKey for retries. Omitting a field preserves it; null clears nullable fields. For commercial cruise reservations and sea/port days use cruise_* tools. Never substitute Activity, CruiseActivity or another segment type for a cruise day. Ordinary shore excursions remain valid Activity/CruiseActivity. If cruise tools are unavailable explain the limitation and ask for clarification.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "cruise_restore"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes
`confirmationToken`	No	Omit to preview. After the user reviews and approves the exact preview, repeat the unchanged request with its token to commit. Never manufacture approval.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`success`	Yes
`contractVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, but the description adds the two-phase commit protocol, the precondition that expectedVersion must come from cruise_get (including a trip-only read before creating a cruise), idempotencyKey reuse on retries, and the omit-preserves / null-clears patch semantics. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and the preview/commit rule are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence carries a distinct constraint. The closing sentence about unavailable cruise tools is slightly boilerplate but still functions as fallback guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, nested-object mutation with an output schema already documenting returns, the description covers preconditions, approval flow, retry safety, field-level patch semantics, and type-substitution rules. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%, yet the description gives meaning to the important inputs: confirmationToken's omit-to-preview versus supply-to-commit contract, expectedVersion's provenance, and idempotencyKey's retry role. The operations array and its single RestoreCruise kind are left to the schema, which is the only notable gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names a specific verb-and-resource pair (restore, cruise) plus the atomic preview/commit model, which an agent cannot confuse with cruise_day_restore or cruise_delete. The later constraint that cruise days must never be modelled as Activity/CruiseActivity further pins down scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It prescribes an explicit ordered workflow: call cruise_get first for expectedVersion, omit confirmationToken to preview, show the user, then repeat the unchanged request with the token only after approval. It also names the exclusion (Activity/CruiseActivity substitution) and the fallback when cruise tools are unavailable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tineo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?