Yenta Directory

Search destinations

search_destinations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search published travel destinations by name; omit the query to list all, and connect to each result's mcp_endpoint for its listings, events and guides.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of items to return.
`query`	No	Text to match against destination names; omit to list all.
`cursor`	No	Number of items to skip; pass `next_cursor` from the previous page.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`item`	No
`items`	No
`reason`	No
`sample`	No
`source`	No	FR-13: which approved revision an answer was read from, and how fresh. ``source`` is ``approved-content-revision:<id>`` for every read that answers from one venue, and the literal ``directory`` for the two cross-venue reads, which have no single revision to cite.
`status`	Yes
`pagination`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / query / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 256,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / sample

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Sample"
+}

First observedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it searches only 'published' destinations and directs the agent to each result's mcp_endpoint for related listings, events, and guides. No contradictions found.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the primary action, the list-all option, and the follow-up routing. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With the output schema present, parameter schema fully self-describing, and annotations covering safety traits, nothing essential is missing. The mention of mcp_endpoint completion makes the tool's role in the larger workflow clear.

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%, and each parameter already has descriptive text. The description reinforces that query matches destination names and that omitting it lists all, but it does not add substantial semantics beyond the schema.

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 description states a specific action ('Search published travel destinations by name') with a clear resource, and clarifies the omit-query-to-list-all behavior. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pointing users to each result's mcp_endpoint for listings, events, and guides.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage context: search by name or omit query to list all, and connect to mcp_endpoint for further details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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

All Yenta Directory 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?