ATA Travel

search_network_availability

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find accommodations across the ATA Travel Network with real-time pricing. Use when dates are known. Supports filtering by amenities, views, property type, and free-text keyword to handle vague requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`views`	No	Filter by room views. e.g. ['Ocean', 'Mountain', 'Garden', 'City']
`adults`	No	Number of adults
`checkIn`	Yes	Check-in date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`keyword`	No	Free-text keyword matched against property name/description. Great for vibe searches like 'boutique', 'beachside', 'romantic'.
`checkOut`	Yes	Check-out date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`children`	No	Number of children
`location`	No	Optional city, state, or country. Omit when the traveler knows dates but is open to ATA's current destinations.
`maxPrice`	No	Maximum total price filter
`amenities`	No	Filter by amenities on property or rooms. e.g. ['Pool', 'Gym', 'Pet Friendly', 'Spa']
`preferences`	No	Open-ended soft ranking signals. These do not exclude otherwise valid stays.
`propertyType`	No	e.g. 'Hotel', 'Apartment', 'Villa'
`priceAudience`	No
`displayCurrency`	No	Optional 3-letter currency for approximate traveler-facing display conversion. Native property currency remains authoritative.
`internalAgentKey`	No
`maxPriceCurrency`	No	Currency for maxPrice when filtering across mixed property currencies. If omitted, maxPrice is compared to each property's native currency.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare safe, read-only behavior. Description adds useful context like real-time pricing and filtering 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then usage guidance, with zero wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers key aspects for a search tool with many parameters, annotations, and no output schema. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or result limits, but overall adequate.

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 high (87%), so baseline is 3. Description adds value beyond schema for 'keyword' (vibe searches) and 'location' (omit when open to destinations), enhancing agent understanding.

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 tool finds accommodations across the ATA Travel Network with real-time pricing, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling search_flexible_network_availability by emphasizing date knowledge requirement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use when dates are known', providing clear context. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context signals and sibling tools imply distinction.

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

All ATA Travel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?