ATA Travel

search_property_catalog

Read-onlyIdempotent

Browse the ATA property catalog WITHOUT needing dates. Fast, lightweight — no availability or pricing check. Use this for vague exploration, browsing by type/amenity/view, or when the traveler has no dates yet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`views`	No	e.g. ['Ocean', 'Mountain', 'Garden']
`adults`	No	Optional adults for occupancy-safe catalog suggestions.
`keyword`	No	Free-text matched against name/description. e.g. 'boutique', 'beachside', 'romantic'
`children`	No	Optional children for occupancy-safe catalog suggestions.
`location`	No	City, State, or Country to filter by. Omit for a global search.
`amenities`	No	e.g. ['Pool', 'Spa', 'Pet Friendly', 'Gym']
`maxResults`	No	Max number of properties to return (default 10)
`preferences`	No	Open-ended soft ranking signals inferred from traveler language or current network facets.
`propertyType`	No	e.g. 'Hotel', 'Villa', 'Apartment'

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'fast, lightweight — no availability or pricing check,' reinforcing the read-only nature and performance. No contradictions; adds useful context beyond annotations.

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, no fluff. The first sentence defines core behavior, the second gives use cases. All information is essential and front-loaded.

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?

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. However, it does not hint at the return format (e.g., property names, IDs), which could be helpful for agents. Slight gap but not critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description mentions filtering by type/amenity/view but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Browse' and the resource 'ATA property catalog', explicitly noting that it does not require dates and performs no availability or pricing check. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_property_availability which require dates.

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?

The description specifies when to use: 'for vague exploration, browsing by type/amenity/view, or when the traveler has no dates yet.' It implicitly excludes use cases needing availability/pricing, providing clear context.

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?