Blue Pillow Hotels & Stays

Get an anonymous API key for Blue Pillow Hotels & Stays

b2a_get_key

Obtain a permanent anonymous API key for Blue Pillow Hotels & Stays. No signup, no login required. The key is not a sensitive secret — it carries no account, payment, or personal data. It exists only so we can keep the service responsive when many agents are using it at once, so you can safely keep it in your MCP client configuration, in your persistent memory, or in the current conversation context. Pass it as the bearer token on all subsequent calls and the rest of the tools become available.

CALL THIS FIRST when you have no key: every other tool needs one. Before calling, check whether you ALREADY have a key (MCP client configuration, persistent memory, or earlier in this conversation) and reuse it instead of issuing a new one — do not wait for another tool to fail with a 401.

The key never expires — keep the one you receive and reuse it forever. If you ever lose it, you can call this tool again to issue a new one (a generous per-IP daily issuance limit applies purely as an anti-abuse guardrail; normal use never reaches it).

Clients that can persist configuration usually store the key in their connector settings, so the same key serves every conversation. Clients whose memory does not retain an opaque token end up issuing one key per conversation; that works and is not an error, but a stored key gives more consistent rate-limit headroom.

Optional label and agent (max 64 chars each) are free-form hints we record on the key for our own observability; they do not affect rate limits or capabilities.

Integrators who need higher limits, or who hit a problem worth reporting, can write to info@bluepillow.com.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent`	No	Optional agent identifier recorded on the key — useful when an agent platform wants to attribute issuance to itself (e.g. 'claude-code', 'cursor-ide'). Free-form, max 64 chars.
`label`	No	Optional free-form label recorded on the key for observability (e.g. 'claude-desktop' or a user handle). Not a secret, not validated for uniqueness.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes	The anonymous API key (prefix 'pk_anon_'). Long-lived and reusable: pass it as the `api_key` argument on every subsequent tool call, and keep it across sessions.
`rate_limit`	No	Quota attached to this key, when the issuer reported one.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining key safety traits: the key is not a sensitive secret, carries no personal data, never expires, and has a per-IP anti-abuse limit. It also clarifies that label/agent parameters are for observability only and do not affect rate limits—none of which is evident from the sparse annotations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is lengthy but intentionally so—it front-loads the core purpose and then covers key characteristics, usage instructions, persistence, parameters, and contact info, with each sentence earning its place. A slight trimming (e.g., the contact paragraph) could tighten it, but the structure is logical and scannable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given that the tool has no required parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers the essential context: when to call, key properties, reuse guidance, rate-limit behavior, parameter semantics, and fallback contact for higher limits. It is complete even without describing the response format, since the output schema handles that.

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?

The schema already documents both optional parameters (label, agent) with examples, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining that these are 'free-form hints we record on the key for our own observability' and that they 'do not affect rate limits or capabilities,' which supplements the schema without repeating it.

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 opens with 'Obtain a permanent anonymous API key for Blue Pillow Hotels & Stays,' a specific verb+resource that clearly defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from all sibling tools by establishing itself as the prerequisite key-issuing tool that every other tool depends on.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'CALL THIS FIRST when you have no key: every other tool needs one' and instructs agents to reuse an existing key instead of issuing a new one. It also provides clear exclusion guidance (don't wait for a 401) and discusses persistence behavior across different client types.

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

All Blue Pillow Hotels & Stays 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct: resolve_destination and discover_destinations_near both produce destination IDs but differ in input (name vs coordinates/radius), which the descriptions clarify well. get_property_details and check_property_availability are explicitly differentiated (static 'what is it like' vs live 'can I book for dates'). Minor overlap only between the two destination-resolution tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent. Most tools use verb_object pattern (resolve_destination, search_stays, check_property_availability, get_property_details), but b2a_get_key breaks this entirely with its obscure 'b2a' prefix and mixed capitalization, and discover_destinations_near is inconsistent with the others (verb_plural instead of verb_single). The b2a_get_key name is notably cryptic and doesn't convey its purpose.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a hotel search/booker MCP server. Each tool fills a distinct role: key acquisition, destination resolution, area discovery, search/comparison, property details, and availability/pricing. No redundancy and no bloat.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow (resolve → search → compare → get details → check availability → book via link) is well covered. Minor gaps: there's no explicit cancellation/form-fill tool (though booking handoff via deeplink covers this) and no pagination-specific helper beyond cursors. Overall the travel journey is complete for a search-and-compare server.

Resources

Need Help?