Corissia Resorts Crete

Suggest a hotel for a trip

suggest_hotel

Read-onlyIdempotent

Which of the five hotels fits a trip, from the guests (adults; the age of each child on the day of arrival, an empty list for no children), the area, the wishes and the dates. The answer lists every hotel: excluded by a hard condition (AGE_RESTRICTION: Harmony and Chania Flair take guests aged 14 and over; AREA; HOTEL_NOT_OPERATING; OPERATION_UNCONFIRMED), the wishes it covers with the facts or rooms that prove them, the wishes it misses, the rooms for the guests, and its reasons (who it suits, what is special, who it suits less). suggestion: recommend (one hotel that fits clearly better, an alternative, and say_with_it: the age rule of an adults hotel), ask (the question that decides: preferences, area, children, room_priority when no room has the wishes of the room together, or a wish), options (equal choices) or none. No prices. API v3.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "suggest_hotel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`area`	No	chania: Chania town (Hilton Chania, Chania Flair); georgioupolis: the seaside village (Harmony, Corissia Princess, Corissia Beach).
`lang`	No	Language of names, texts and links: de or en (default en).
`adults`	No	Adults (default 2).
`wishes`	No	What the guests want: adults_only, chania_town, spa, private_pool, direct_sea_view, year_round, beach, swim_up, two_bedrooms.
`checkin`	No	Arrival, YYYY-MM-DD (with checkout).
`checkout`	No	Departure, YYYY-MM-DD (with checkin).
`children_ages`	No	Age of each child on the day of arrival (0-17). An empty list: no children; missing: not known.
`not_important`	No	The wishes the guests said are not important to them (the answer «no» to a question about a wish, or the other wish of a room_priority question).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the answer enumerates every hotel, lists hard exclusions with codes (AGE_RESTRICTION, AREA, HOTEL_NOT_OPERATING, OPERATION_UNCONFIRMED), and states 'No prices' plus 'API v3'. It does not say what happens when dates or children_ages are omitted, but the exclusion taxonomy and suggestion modes are substantial disclosure.

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?

It is information-dense and every clause carries content, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The heavy nested parentheses and hyphen-free run-on make it harder to parse than it needs to be, so it loses a point on structure rather than length.

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 eight optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does: excluded hotels with reason codes, covered and missed wishes, room assignments, and the four suggestion outcomes. Missing only edge-case behavior (partial dates, unknown children) for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all eight parameters, including enums and the empty-list/children semantics. The description's parenthetical recap of adults, child ages and empty list mostly repeats the schema; its only added nuance is the implied link between children's ages and the 14-and-over rule. Baseline 3 fits.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening states a specific verb and resource: pick which of five hotels fits a trip given guests, area, wishes and dates. It is concrete enough to separate from siblings like get_hotel_facts, but it never names an alternative or says how it differs from compare_hotels, so full differentiation is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied through the input dimensions (guests, area, wishes, dates) rather than stated: there is no 'call this when' sentence and no exclusion or prerequisite. The mention of 'ask (the question that decides...)' describes an output mode of the answer, not when to prefer this tool over a sibling.

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

All Corissia Resorts Crete tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?