Find activities, tours, attractions, food experiences, and nightlife in a city (sourced from Hotelbeds). If no date range provided, defaults to next 7 days. Returns activity name, price, duration, image, and whether free cancellation is offered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| date_from | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the default 7-day date window and the specific return fields (name, price, duration, image, free cancellation). This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, default behavior, and return data. No redundant or filler content; it is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It also explains the data source and default date logic. Remaining gaps (like parameter interplay) are minor given the schema provides formats and defaults, making the overall description sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that 'city' is the target, indirectly maps categories (tours, attractions, food, nightlife) to the category enum, and explains the date-range default. However, it does not explain limit, country, or currency, leaving some parameters underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Find activities, tours, attractions, food experiences, and nightlife in a city (sourced from Hotelbeds)', which clearly states the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_events or search_hotels_near_event which focus on different domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates this is for searching city-based experiences and notes the default date range behavior. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the scope is well-defined enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
