Skip to main content
Glama

korea-stay

by app.sallim
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

숙소 상세

stay_detail
Read-onlyIdempotent

숙소 하나의 상세 정보(이름·주소·좌표·종류·원장 출처)를 조회한다. 재고는 조회하지 못한다 — 이 서버에 붙은 재고 채널이 0개라 날짜·인원을 줘도 availability는 항상 unknown이다(사유는 unavailable_reason에 실린다). 만실도 빈방 있음도 아니다. 빈방·요금은 stay_booking_link로 원본 검색 링크를 받아 직접 확인하라.

관광공사(tourapi) 행에는 인허가 원장의 폐업 등록과 이름·주소 정확 일치로 대조한 결과가 ledger_closure로 온다 — closed_in_ledger면 원장 기준 폐업이다(폐업 등록을 못 찾은 것은 영업 중의 확증이 아니다).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guestsNo인원(1~30)
checkinNo체크인 YYYY-MM-DD
stay_idYesstay_search가 준 stay_id (예: tourapi:2671267)
checkoutNo체크아웃 YYYY-MM-DD
include_footnotesNotrue면 계산값(건수·요금)의 근거 전문(산식·모집단·기간·원천)을 footnotes에 싣는다(기본은 행마다 한 줄 요지)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_footnotes
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "true면 계산값(건수·요금)의 근거 전문(산식·모집단·기간·원천)을 footnotes에 싣는다(기본은 행마다 한 줄 요지)",
+  "title": "Include Footnotes",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / stay_id / maxLength
      Added value: +200
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / guests / maximum
      Added value: +30
    • addedInput schema / properties / guests / minimum
      Added value: +1
  4. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / guests / description
      Added value: +"인원(1~30)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / guests / maximum
      Removed value: -30
    • removedInput schema / properties / guests / minimum
      Removed value: -1
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: availability is always unknown because zero inventory channels are attached, the reason surfaces in unavailable_reason, and ledger_closure semantics are spelled out including the caveat that a missing closure record is not proof the business is open. It does not, however, cover pagination or response shape (output schema exists).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the availability limitation, then the alternative tool, then the ledger caveat — a sensible priority order. It is somewhat long and the ledger paragraph is dense, but each sentence carries non-redundant information.

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 read-only detail endpoint with an output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it goes further by interpreting ledger_closure and unavailable_reason fields and warning about the false-negative interpretation of ledger closure. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema cannot: passing checkin/checkout/guests still yields availability=unknown, which tells the agent those parameters are inert for availability purposes. This is exactly the kind of semantic context the schema descriptions lack.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (숙소 하나의 상세 정보 조회) and enumerates the returned fields (이름·주소·좌표·종류·원장 출처). It also carves out a hard boundary against stay_search (id source) and stay_booking_link (availability/pricing), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says what this tool cannot do (재고 조회 불가, availability always unknown) and names the correct alternative with the condition that selects it (빈방·요금은 stay_booking_link로). Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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

All korea-stay toolsInspect
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