Search the published six-site Travellers Group corpus (guides, hubs, FAQs, pages). Returns ranked answer capsules (≤120 words) with canonical URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| town | No | Bundaberg | Rockhampton | Emerald | Orange | Dubbo | |
| type | No | ||
| query | Yes | What the traveller wants to know, in their own words | |
| property | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint) by specifying the output format: ranked answer capsules (≤120 words) with canonical URLs. This tells the agent what to expect, though it omits details like pagination or response structure.
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 a single sentence that starts with the core action and resource. It is extremely concise, with no wasted words, and every element earns its place.
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?
The description provides adequate context about what the tool searches and returns, but it lacks details on parameter usage, pagination, or sorting behavior. Given the moderate parameter count and no output schema, more explanation would improve completeness.
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 schema description coverage is 50%, and the tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. It does not explain how parameters like 'type' or 'property' affect the search, leaving the agent to infer from enum values and parameter names.
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 states the tool searches a specific corpus (six-site Travellers Group) of content types (guides, hubs, FAQs, pages). The verb 'search' and the resource are explicit, and the scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_town_guide or get_property.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify when not to use it or mention any prerequisites or context for invocation, leaving the agent without decision-support.
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.
