Return a compact, live summary of destinations, stay types, capacity, amenities, views, and published suitability guidance currently available on the ATA network. Use this before offering discovery shortcuts or asking a vague traveler to choose from options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds 'live summary' context, complementing annotations without contradiction.
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?
Two sentences: first explains what the tool does, second gives usage guidance. No redundancy or wasted words.
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?
Given zero params and no output schema, the description lists sufficient return content (destinations, stay types, etc.). Annotations cover safety and idempotency. Adequate for a simple retrieval 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?
No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as description need not add param info.
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 returns a 'compact, live summary' with specific content areas (destinations, stay types, etc.). It also distinguishes usage from siblings by advising to use this before offering discovery shortcuts or asking vague travelers.
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?
Explicitly states when to use it: 'before offering discovery shortcuts or asking a vague traveler to choose from options.' However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives.
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.
Multiple search tools (search_buildings, search_property_catalog, search_network_availability) and detail tools (get_building_details, get_property_details, get_stays_in_building) have overlapping boundaries, though descriptions clarify date and availability distinctions. The verification/handoff tools are more clearly separated but still numerous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_*, get_*, search_*, start_*, verify_*). There are no mixed casing conventions or vague generic verbs, making the set predictable and easy to scan.
With 22 tools, the server is on the heavy end of a typical MCP scope, though each tool has a defined purpose. Several narrow status and discovery helpers inflate the count, but the overall count is not yet extreme.
The booking lifecycle is incomplete: create_quote and create_provisional_booking exist, but there is no cancel, update, or explicit payment action, and get_reservation_status explicitly cannot change or cancel a reservation. Search and verification are well covered, but missing booking mutations will cause agent dead ends.