delete_accommodation
Destructive
Remove a booking from the trip.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accommodation_id | Yes |
nomadpoint
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation sets 'destructiveHint' to true, and the description says 'Remove', which implies a destructive operation. However, there is no statement about whether the action is reversible, permanent, or has side effects on other trip data. The absence of such details reduces transparency for a delete operation.
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?
The description is concise and to the point, consisting of a single clear sentence. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, making it easy to read. However, it could be structured to include more details without losing conciseness, but overall it is appropriately brief for a simple delete action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides minimal context: it mentions 'the trip', implying a travel-planning domain, but does not clarify the relationship between the accommodation and the trip, or what happens after deletion. There is no output schema, and the parameter's format is unspecified, leaving a significant completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'accommodation_id' is not described in the schema (0% coverage), and the description only refers to 'a booking' without explaining that this ID is required. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not explicitly map it to the booking, leaving room for ambiguity about what exactly is removed.
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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the object ('a booking from the trip'), which unambiguously conveys that this tool deletes an accommodation booking. The tool name 'delete_accommodation' reinforces this intent, so there is no confusion about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., the booking must already be added to the trip), or what the effect is on the overall trip plan. It is a bare statement of action, leaving the user without context on how or when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., create_flight vs create_activity vs create_stay), and descriptions clarify overlaps like stay vs accommodation. The only potential confusion (create_activity covers travel legs) is explicitly explained, so misselection is unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using standard verbs: create, delete, get, list, search, set, update, add, remove, leave. Nouns are consistently singular and descriptive (passport, journey, stay, flight, accommodation). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Tool Count4/5
With 36 tools, the count is higher than typical, but the server covers a wide domain: journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas, documents, preferences, and sharing. Each entity has CRUD operations plus search and status, so the count is justified, though bordering on heavy.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD for every entity (journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas), user profile access (get_me), search utilities, sharing controls (join links, member management), and preferences. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps; even edge cases like deleting bookings before stays are handled.