Indicative rate ranges from the published, commercially-signed rate module only — framed as indicative, never a quote. Where no figure is published, returns the booking link instead (never an estimate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| property | Yes | ||
| room_type | No | ||
| stay_band | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, clarifying that the tool never returns quotes, only indicative ranges, and that it may return a booking link. This is consistent with the annotations and adds valuable transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that convey the essential purpose and behavior. Every word contributes to understanding, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description explains the tool's output clearly, it fails to address the input parameters or provide usage context for the 3-parameter schema. Without output schema, the agent lacks complete information to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (property, room_type, stay_band) or their meanings. The agent receives no guidance on how to use these parameters, which is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the tool returns indicative rate ranges from the published, commercially-signed rate module, and distinguishes it from a quote. It also explains the fallback to a booking link when no figure is published, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like 'check_availability'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to get indicative rates) and what it returns (rate ranges or booking link). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: availability returns a pre-filled link, enquiries are separated by type, corporate info is separate from general property info, distances vs events vs rates vs room types vs town guide vs search vs recommendation. The only potential confusion is between create_enquiry and create_corporate_enquiry, but descriptions clarify the target audience. Overall, no ambiguity.
All tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_availability, get_distances, create_enquiry). The verbs are appropriate (check, create, get, recommend, search) and nouns clearly indicate the resource. No mixing of styles or vague verbs.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a hotel information and enquiry system. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the domain without overlap or unnecessary bloat. The count is within the optimal range (3-15) for an MCP server.
The tool set covers core hotel information retrieval (property, rooms, rates, distances, events, town guide) and enquiry creation (general and corporate). However, there is no tool to complete a booking or confirm availability beyond a link. This is a minor gap; agents must hand off to the booking engine. Overall, the surface is mostly complete for its stated purpose.
