Tineo

Create trip

trip_create

Create a new trip with explicit start_date and end_date (YYYY-MM-DD), covering its planned segments. Returns its ID; the authenticated user becomes the owner.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "trip_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Trip title MUST be a human-readable destination name (e.g. 'Barcelona', 'Tokyo & Kyoto (Oct 2026)'). DO NOT use hyphenated airport corridor codes (e.g. 'DAC-IST-BCN-IST-DAC-CXB'). If unsure, provide destination city name or leave generic.
`end_date`	Yes	Trip end date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`start_date`	Yes	Trip start date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`description`	No	Optional trip description or notes, up to 1000 characters (keep it under about 900)
`destination`	No	Primary destination city or region

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the new trip's ID is returned and the authenticated user is made owner, which an agent needs to chain follow-up calls. It omits failure behavior and duplicate-title handling, keeping it below a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and required inputs, followed by the return/ownership consequence. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a five-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers the required inputs, format, and post-call result. What is missing is minor: no note on what happens if creation fails or whether an identical trip can be created twice.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters, including the strict title naming rule and the YYYY-MM-DD date format, are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the date format and required-ness, adding little beyond the structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new trip') plus the scope of the payload ('covering its planned segments') and the return ('Returns its ID'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like trip_update or segment_create, so the agent must infer the create-vs-update boundary, but the intent is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'Create a new trip' suggests this is for new trips rather than existing ones, and 'explicit start_date and end_date' implies both are mandatory. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for adding segments to an existing trip.

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?