ATA Travel

suggest_traveler_memory

Save or update one durable traveler memory for personalization. Use only for stable, travel-relevant preferences or constraints explicitly stated by the traveler.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes	Stable normalized memory key. Choose the closest allowed key.
`type`	Yes	Memory category.
`value`	Yes	Small JSON value, e.g. {"hasServiceDog":true} or {"typicalAdults":2,"typicalChildren":1}.
`source`	No		USER_STATED
`summary`	Yes	Short practical note, without speculation or sensitive details.
`confidence`	No	Confidence in this memory. Use 1 for explicit user statements, lower for inferred patterns.
`travelerId`	Yes	Verified traveler ID from the private traveler context.
`visibility`	No		AGENT_ONLY

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds value by indicating that the memory is durable and used for personalization, and that it can both save and update. However, it lacks details on side effects such as conflict resolution, overwrite behavior, or concurrency, which are important given the non-idempotent annotation.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and constraints. There is no superfluous information, making it easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 5 required, no output schema), the description is adequate but omits important context such as return values, error handling, or idempotency behavior. It covers the essential purpose but not all operational details.

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?

The description does not elaborate on any parameters beyond what the input schema already covers. With schema coverage at 75%, the description adds no extra value for parameter understanding, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Save or update') and the resource ('durable traveler memory') for personalization. It also specifies the scope ('only for stable, travel-relevant preferences or constraints explicitly stated'), distinguishing it from related tools like get_traveler_memories.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: only for stable, explicitly stated preferences. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context of sibling tools implies this is the sole writing tool for memories.

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?