Search real hotels, get live per-night quotes, and check out — all in chat. Guest search and checkout-link tools need no sign-in; OAuth unlocks saved trips, booking management, and one-click checkout. Renders interactive results, hotel-detail, and checkout widgets.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.1/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: searching, fetching details, checkout flows, booking management, trips, and payment methods. Overlaps like search vs search_hotels and get_booking vs get_my_booking are differentiated by input type or purpose, avoiding ambiguity.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_trip_item, create_checkout, get_rooms). A few exceptions like `fetch` and `search` lack a verb prefix, but they are still descriptive and fit the overall convention.
With 18 tools, the server covers the full hotel booking lifecycle without overwhelming complexity. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers searching, viewing details, booking, checkout, cancellations, modifications, trips, and payment methods. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_trip or update_payment_method), but the core workflows for booking management are complete.
add_trip_itemAdd trip itemAInspectAdd an item (hotel, flight, activity, etc.) to a saved trip on a given day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | Day number within the trip. | |
| type | Yes | Item type. | |
| title | Yes | Item title (1-255 chars). | |
| sortOrder | No | Order within the day (default 0). | |
| description | No | Optional notes (≤2000 chars). | |
| itineraryPublicId | Yes | The trip's public id (from `list_trips`/`save_trip`). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds that the operation adds an item to a trip on a day, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or limitations. With annotations covering the basics, the description adds marginal behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with purpose and examples. Every word contributes value.
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?
The tool has 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema. The description covers the core action but omits return value (e.g., response containing the created item) and error conditions. For a simple addition tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description repeats 'on a given day' and implicitly includes item types via examples, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb 'Add', the resource 'item to a saved trip', and lists examples (hotel, flight, activity). It distinguishes itself from siblings like save_trip and list_trips by narrowing to adding items.
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 implies usage for adding various item types to a trip on a specific day, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention alternatives. Given the uniqueness of the tool among siblings, the lack of explicit differentiation is acceptable but not perfect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cancel_bookingCancel bookingACancel one of the signed-in user's bookings. Requires the 6-digit verificationCode from request_booking_action_code. This may be irreversible and can trigger a refund per policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Optional cancellation reason (≤1000 chars). | |
| publicId | Yes | The booking's public id. | |
| verificationCode | Yes | 6-digit code from `request_booking_action_code`. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive hint; description adds that cancellation 'may be irreversible and can trigger a refund per policy', which provides additional behavioral 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient, front-loaded sentences that convey purpose, prerequisite, and consequences without unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisite, and effects. No output schema needed.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage; description does not add new parameter details beyond what schema provides. However, it references the verification code source, which adds some context.
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?
Description clearly states 'cancel one of the signed-in user's bookings', specifying the action and scope. It is distinct from siblings like 'modify_booking' and 'request_booking_action_code'.
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?
Description explicitly requires the 6-digit verification code from 'request_booking_action_code', providing a clear prerequisite. It does not state when not to use, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_checkoutCreate checkoutACreate a secure checkout for a chosen hotel room and return a getmyhotels.com URL where the guest completes payment. This does NOT charge the card — the guest pays on the hosted page. Confirm the hotel, room, dates, and price with the user before calling. Call get_checkout_quote first to confirm the live price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Hotel `ref` from `search_hotels` (e.g. 'TBO:1402689'). Alternative to supplierCode + supplierHotelId. | |
| price | Yes | Total to charge for the WHOLE stay (use `grandTotal` from `get_checkout_quote` verbatim — do not multiply it by the number of nights). | |
| rooms | No | Rooms (default 1). | |
| adults | No | Adults (default 2). | |
| checkIn | Yes | Check-in date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| checkOut | Yes | Check-out date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| children | No | Children (default 0). | |
| currency | Yes | ISO 4217 currency of `price`/`totalPrice` (e.g. 'USD'). | |
| roomName | Yes | Room name (from the chosen room). | |
| hotelName | Yes | Hotel name (from `search_hotels`). | |
| childrenAges | No | Age of each child. | |
| supplierCode | No | Supplier code (from `search_hotels`). Required if `ref` is omitted. | |
| supplierRoomId | Yes | Bookable room/rate id from the chosen room in `search_hotels`. | |
| supplierHotelId | No | Supplier hotel id (from `search_hotels`). Required if `ref` is omitted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Clearly states the tool does NOT charge the card (payment is on the hosted page), which adds transparency beyond the destructiveHint annotation. No contradictions.
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?
Three well-structured sentences with key information front-loaded: purpose, no-charge behavior, and usage guidelines. No wasted words.
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?
Covers prerequisites, behavioral transparency, and parameter usage. Could briefly mention the return value or post-checkout flow, but overall complete given the complexity and sibling tools.
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?
Adds significant meaning beyond the schema, e.g., 'use grandTotal from get_checkout_quote verbatim' for price, and clarifies the relationship between ref and supplierCode/supplierHotelId.
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 clearly states the tool creates a secure checkout for a hotel room and returns a URL for payment, distinguishing it from siblings like get_checkout_quote and create_one_click_checkout.
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?
Explicitly instructs to confirm hotel details with the user before calling and to call get_checkout_quote first to confirm live price, providing clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_one_click_checkoutCreate one-click checkoutACreate a checkout for the signed-in user with a saved card pre-selected, and return a getmyhotels.com URL where they confirm + pay in one click. Does NOT charge the card — the user confirms on the hosted page. Get the savedPaymentMethodPublicId from list_payment_methods. Confirm the hotel, room, dates, and price with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Hotel `ref` from `search_hotels` (e.g. 'TBO:1402689'). | |
| price | Yes | Total for the WHOLE stay (use `grandTotal` from `get_checkout_quote` verbatim — do not multiply it by the number of nights). | |
| rooms | No | Rooms (default 1). | |
| adults | No | Adults (default 2). | |
| checkIn | Yes | Check-in date, ISO 8601. | |
| checkOut | Yes | Check-out date, ISO 8601. | |
| children | No | Children (default 0). | |
| currency | Yes | ISO 4217 currency (e.g. 'USD'). | |
| roomName | Yes | Room name. | |
| hotelName | Yes | Hotel name. | |
| supplierCode | No | Supplier code (if `ref` omitted). | |
| supplierRoomId | Yes | Bookable room/rate id from `search_hotels`. | |
| supplierHotelId | No | Supplier hotel id (if `ref` omitted). | |
| savedPaymentMethodPublicId | Yes | Saved card `publicId` from `list_payment_methods`. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate `destructiveHint: true` and `readOnlyHint: false`, marking it as a mutation. The description clarifies that the card is not charged (user confirms later) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like inventory holds, timeouts, or side effects. While not contradictory, it adds only partial transparency 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?
Four sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second clarifies a key behavioral fact (no charge), the third provides a prerequisite instruction, and the fourth recommends user confirmation. Ideal front-loading and efficiency.
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?
For a tool with 14 parameters, 8 required, and no output schema, the description covers the workflow well: it links to sibling tools (`list_payment_methods`, `get_checkout_quote`), explains the payment flow, and advises user confirmation. It could mention error/edge-case behavior but is complete for practical agent usage.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds critical meaning: explains that `price` is the `grandTotal` from `get_checkout_quote` (not per night), sources `savedPaymentMethodPublicId` from `list_payment_methods`, and clarifies when to use `ref` vs `supplierCode`/`supplierHotelId`. This is high-value context beyond the schema.
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 uses specific verbs ('create a checkout') and names the resource ('one-click checkout') with a distinct outcome: a URL for single-click confirmation and payment. It clearly differentiates from siblings like `create_checkout` (standard checkout) and `cancel_booking` (different operation).
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 advises when to use the tool (after confirming details with user, after obtaining `savedPaymentMethodPublicId`) and explicitly states that it does not charge the card. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance and does not compare directly with the sibling `create_checkout`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetchFetchAFetch the full record for a result id returned by search (a hotel) or for a booking reference (prefixed 'bk_'). Returns a document with id, title, text, url, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | An id from `search` results, or a 'bk_'-prefixed booking ref. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safety and openness are clear. The description adds context about the return format (id, title, text, url, metadata), which is helpful but does not elaborate on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.
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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and return format. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is an example of efficient communication.
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?
Given that the tool has a single parameter, annotations for read-only and open-world behavior, and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields. It lacks information about possible errors or edge cases, but for a simple fetch tool with well-documented input, it is largely complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema. The tool description repeats this information (id from search results or bk_-prefixed) without adding new meaning. Since the schema already carries the full burden, the description adds no extra value for this dimension.
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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches a full record for either a search result id (hotel) or a booking reference. The verb 'Fetch' and specific resource types make the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_booking' or 'get_hotel_details', which might overlap in functionality.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a search id or booking ref) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. For a tool that seems to combine hotel and booking fetching, it would benefit from stating that it is a unified alternative to separate tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_bookingGet bookingALook up a hotel booking by its management token (sent in the confirmation email). Returns the booking status, hotel, dates, and guest details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bookingToken | Yes | The booking management token from the confirmation email/URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by detailing the return fields (status, hotel, dates, guest details), aligning with the read-only nature.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence conveys essential information.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description specifies the returned data types (status, hotel, dates, guest details). It does not cover error cases, but for a lookup tool this is adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description explains that the bookingToken comes from the confirmation email/URL, adding practical context beyond the schema's definition.
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 uses a specific verb 'Look up' and identifies the exact resource 'hotel booking by its management token'. It also lists the returned data (status, hotel, dates, guest details), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_my_booking'.
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 states the required input (management token from confirmation email). It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_checkout_quoteGet checkout quoteARe-price a specific room live against the supplier before checkout (no booking, no charge). Use the supplierRoomId and price/currency from search_hotels. Returns the authoritative grand total, a rateValidUntil timestamp, and any taxes/fees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Hotel `ref` from `search_hotels` (e.g. 'TBO:1402689'). Alternative to supplierCode + supplierHotelId. | |
| rooms | No | Rooms (default 1). | |
| adults | No | Adults (default 2). | |
| checkIn | Yes | Check-in date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| checkOut | Yes | Check-out date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| children | No | Children (default 0). | |
| currency | Yes | ISO 4217 currency of `price`/`totalPrice` (e.g. 'USD'). | |
| promoCode | No | Optional promo code. | |
| totalPrice | Yes | The room's price from `search_hotels` — the TOTAL for the whole stay, not a nightly rate (used to detect price changes). | |
| childrenAges | No | Age of each child. | |
| supplierCode | No | Supplier code (from `search_hotels`). Required if `ref` is omitted. | |
| supplierRoomId | Yes | Bookable room/rate id from the chosen room in `search_hotels`. | |
| supplierHotelId | No | Supplier hotel id (from `search_hotels`). Required if `ref` is omitted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reinforces the safe, read-only nature already indicated by `readOnlyHint: true` by stating 'no booking, no charge'. It also discloses return values (grand total, rateValidUntil, taxes/fees), adding value beyond annotations. No contradictions 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and safety, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description mentions three key return fields, providing enough context. With 13 parameters fully documented in the schema, the description does not need to enumerate them. It is complete enough for a well-documented tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the provenance of `supplierRoomId`, `totalPrice`, and `currency` (from `search_hotels`), which helps agents correctly source parameters. It does not repeat schema details, which is appropriate given the high coverage.
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 clearly states the tool re-prices a specific room live before checkout, emphasizing it is a non-destructive operation ('no booking, no charge'). It specifies inputs from `search_hotels` and returns the grand total, rateValidUntil, and taxes/fees, distinguishing it from siblings like `create_checkout` and `create_one_click_checkout`.
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 provides clear guidance on when to use ('before checkout') and what inputs to derive from `search_hotels` (`supplierRoomId`, `price`, `currency`). It does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate from booking-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_hotel_detailsGet hotel detailsAGet full property details (description, amenities, photos, policies, location) for a hotel, identified by its ref from search_hotels (or its supplierCode + supplierHotelId).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | The hotel `ref` from search (e.g. 'tbo:1360717'). | |
| supplierCode | No | Alternative to `ref`: supplier code. | |
| supplierHotelId | No | Alternative to `ref`: supplier hotel id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms read-only behavior by describing it as 'Get... details'. It adds behavioral context by noting the identification requirement from a previous search, which is valuable. No contradictions.
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 a single clear sentence with essential information front-loaded. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description lists returned data (description, amenities, photos, policies, location). Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. It lacks mention of error conditions or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is mostly complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond explaining relationships (ref from search, alternative usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already covers parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves full property details for a hotel, listing specific data (description, amenities, photos, policies, location) and identifying the hotel by 'ref' from search_hotels or alternative supplier codes. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_hotels (which returns a list) and get_rooms (likely room-specific).
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 explicitly says to use the 'ref' from search_hotels or supplierCode+supplierHotelId, implying this tool is for fetching details after a search. It provides clear context on how to invoke it but does not state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_my_bookingGet my bookingAGet full details of one of the signed-in user's bookings by its public id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publicId | Yes | The booking's public id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety. The description adds that it returns 'full details' and uses a public ID, but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., 404 if booking not found) or rate limits. Given the annotation, the description is minimally supplementary.
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?
A single sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. 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?
Given no output schema, the description could be more specific about what 'full details' includes. For a simple read tool it is adequate, but the output structure is left ambiguous.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of 'publicId'. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
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 clearly states the tool gets full details of a booking for the signed-in user, using the booking's public ID. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_bookings (list vs. single) and get_booking (any user vs. own).
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 mentions 'signed-in user' scoping, which helps decide between this and get_booking. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_roomsGet hotel roomsAList the bookable rooms for ONE hotel and date range. Each room's supplierRoomId is what you pass to get_checkout_quote / create_checkout. Use the hotel ref from search_hotels or search. Call this to see all of a chosen hotel's rooms, or to refresh availability before checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | The hotel `ref` from search (e.g. 'tbo:1360717'). | |
| rooms | No | Rooms (default 1). | |
| adults | No | Adults (default 2). | |
| checkIn | Yes | Check-in date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| checkOut | Yes | Check-out date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| children | No | Children (default 0). | |
| supplierCode | No | Alternative to `ref`: supplier code. | |
| supplierHotelId | No | Alternative to `ref`: supplier hotel id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it lists rooms and refreshes availability, aligning with read-only behavior. No contradictions and no undisclosed side effects.
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?
Two sentences front-load the core purpose and provide essential links to related tools. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or waste.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains inputs and how the output connects to other tools. For a simple list tool with good annotations, this is adequate but could mention the optional parameters' defaults.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% so parameters are fully documented. The description adds value by clarifying that 'ref' comes from search and that the output supplierRoomId is used in subsequent tools, enhancing semantics beyond schema.
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 clearly states it lists bookable rooms for one hotel and date range, links the output supplierRoomId to get_checkout_quote/create_checkout, and differentiates from sibling search tools by specifying it's for a single hotel.
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 provides clear context on when to use: after selecting a hotel via search_hotels or search, and to see rooms or refresh availability before checkout. It implies not to use for searching hotels but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_my_bookingsList my bookingsBList the signed-in user's hotel bookings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1). | |
| limit | No | Page size (default 20). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read-only operation. The description adds context about user scoping ('signed-in user'). However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or result format beyond what schema implies. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but minimal.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word is necessary to convey the purpose. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
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?
The tool has no output schema and is relatively simple. The description mentions it lists hotel bookings, but doesn't specify the return format or fields. For a read-only list operation, this is minimally adequate but could be improved by noting typical response structure.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (page, limit). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters clearly.
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 clearly states the tool lists the signed-in user's hotel bookings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_my_booking' (singular) and 'list_trips' (broader scope) by specifying 'hotel bookings' and 'signed-in user', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.
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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_payment_methodsList saved cardsAList the signed-in user's saved payment cards (brand, last 4, expiry, default). Use the returned publicId with create_one_click_checkout to pre-select a card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
ReadOnlyHint annotation already marks safe read; description adds specific returned fields and the critical publicId for downstream use. No contradictions.
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?
Two concise sentences: first describes output, second gives actionable usage hint. No filler.
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?
Despite no output schema, description fully details returned fields and links to another tool. Complete for a listing tool.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Description need not add param info. Baseline of 4 justified.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists the signed-in user's saved payment cards, specifying exact fields (brand, last 4, expiry, default). No ambiguity; distinct from sibling tools.
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?
Explicitly tells agent to use returned publicId with create_one_click_checkout, providing direct usage context. Does not mention when not to use, but clear purpose reduces need.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_tripsList saved tripsAList the signed-in user's saved trips (itineraries).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds only 'signed-in user' context, minimal extra disclosure 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single short sentence, no wasted words.
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?
Minimal description for a simple read operation. Lacks detail on return format or potential limitations, but acceptable given no parameters and readOnlyHint.
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?
No parameters; baseline 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is fine.
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?
Clearly states the action (list) and resource (signed-in user's saved trips/itineraries). Distinguishes from siblings like 'list_my_bookings' and 'save_trip'.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but purpose is straightforward. Implicit that it's for viewing own saved trips.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
modify_bookingModify bookingAChange one of the signed-in user's bookings. Requires the 6-digit verificationCode from request_booking_action_code. Special-request edits always apply. A DATE change is pushed to the hotel supplier as a cancel-and-rebook at current availability, so it only works for suppliers that support amendment — for others (and when no room is available for the new dates) it returns an error asking you to cancel and rebook instead. A date change can shift the price and issue a new confirmation; the result's supplierModifyStatus says whether the supplier reservation was actually changed (modified), simulated (simulated), or the edit stayed local (local_only, e.g. special requests only). Never promise a date change went through unless supplierModifyStatus is modified or simulated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkIn | No | New check-in date, ISO 8601 (optional). | |
| checkOut | No | New check-out date, ISO 8601 (optional). | |
| publicId | Yes | The booking's public id. | |
| specialRequests | No | New special requests (≤2000 chars, optional). | |
| verificationCode | Yes | 6-digit code from `request_booking_action_code`. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Details the cancel-and-rebook mechanism for date changes, explains special-request behavior, and introduces supplierModifyStatus. Adds significant context beyond the destructiveHint annotation.
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?
Five sentences, each providing essential information. Logically ordered: purpose, prerequisite, special-request rule, date change logic, result interpretation. No waste.
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?
Covers necessary behavioral aspects and error cases. Missing explicit output structure, but for a mutation tool without output schema, the description of supplierModifyStatus partially compensates. Could mention what happens with non-date-only changes.
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?
Adds context to verificationCode (from specific sibling), specialRequests (always apply), and date parameters (implications of change). Requires no additional clarification beyond the schema descriptions.
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 first sentence clearly states the tool modifies a signed-in user's booking, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like cancel_booking or request_booking_action_code.
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?
Explicitly requires verificationCode from request_booking_action_code, explains when date changes fail (suppliers not supporting amendment) and advises to cancel and rebook instead. Provides post-condition guidance on supplierModifyStatus.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_booking_action_codeRequest booking action codeAEmail a 6-digit verification code to the booking owner, required before cancelling or modifying a booking. Step 1 of 2 — then call cancel_booking/modify_booking with the code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Which action the code authorizes. | |
| publicId | Yes | The booking's public id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it emails a code (non-destructive but state-changing), specifies the code is 6-digit, and explains it's a prerequisite. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. Could mention failure scenarios, but overall good.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information, no fluff. Every sentence is essential.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and next steps. Could mention edge cases like email failure, but information is sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds chaining context but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema.
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 clearly states that the tool emails a 6-digit verification code, required before cancelling or modifying a booking. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_booking and modify_booking by positioning as Step 1 of a two-step process.
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?
Explicitly states that this tool is required before cancelling or modifying a booking and directs the agent to call cancel_booking or modify_booking with the code. Provides clear when-to-use and next-step instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
save_tripSave a tripBInspectCreate a new saved trip (itinerary) for the signed-in user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Trip title (1-255 chars). | |
| budget | No | Optional total budget. | |
| endDate | Yes | Trip end, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| startDate | Yes | Trip start, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| description | No | Optional notes (≤4000 chars). | |
| budgetCurrency | No | ISO 4217 currency for the budget (e.g. 'USD'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the user context ('for the signed-in user') but provides no additional behavioral details such as side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.
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 a single, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without fluff.
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?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It omits return value hints, parameter relationships (e.g., startDate before endDate), and constraints. The agent would benefit from more context, especially with many sibling tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.
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 clearly specifies the action ('Create'), the resource ('new saved trip (itinerary)'), and the context ('for the signed-in user'). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_trip_item (which modifies an existing trip) and list_trips (which reads trips).
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions or mentions of sibling tools. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this is for trip creation only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearchBSearch GetMyHotels for hotels matching a query. Returns a list of results with ids that can be passed to fetch for full details. Provide the destination and travel dates in the query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Natural-language search, e.g. 'hotels in Lisbon 2026-08-10 to 2026-08-14 for 2 adults'. | |
| rooms | No | Rooms (1-6). Default 1. | |
| adults | No | Adults (1-10). Default 2. | |
| checkIn | No | Check-in date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| checkOut | No | Check-out date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). Must be after check-in. | |
| children | No | Children (0-6). Default 0. | |
| keywords | No | Optional free-text preferences, e.g. 'beachfront pool spa'. | |
| destination | No | City, region, or place to search (e.g. 'Paris', 'Goa', 'Lower Manhattan'). | |
| childrenAges | No | Age of each child at check-in. Length should equal `children`. | |
| guestNationality | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 guest nationality (e.g. 'US', 'GB'). Affects supplier pricing. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that results can be passed to 'fetch', but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or limits. Does not contradict 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?
Two sentences front-load purpose and usage. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.
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?
Explains output type (list of IDs for fetch) but omits details on result structure, pagination, error handling, or any constraints beyond parameters. Acceptable for a search tool given rich schema but could be more complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by clarifying 'query' as natural-language and providing an example. Other parameters are well described in schema, so description moderately enhances semantics.
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?
Clearly states it searches hotels and returns IDs for use with 'fetch'. However, it does not distinguish from sibling 'search_hotels', leaving ambiguity about when to use each.
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?
Only suggests providing destination and travel dates in the query. No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_hotels' or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_hotelsSearch hotelsASearch live hotel availability for a destination and date range. Returns a price-sorted list of hotels (JSON in the text), each with a ref and its cheapest bookable room's supplierRoomId. To book: pass a room's supplierRoomId + the hotel ref to get_checkout_quote then create_checkout. For a hotel's other rooms (or a hotel not in the list), call get_rooms. Narrow with keywords (a hotel name, area, or amenities).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rooms | No | Rooms (1-6). Default 1. | |
| adults | No | Adults (1-10). Default 2. | |
| checkIn | Yes | Check-in date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| checkOut | Yes | Check-out date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). Must be after check-in. | |
| children | No | Children (0-6). Default 0. | |
| keywords | No | Optional free-text preferences, e.g. 'beachfront pool spa'. | |
| destination | Yes | City, region, or place to search (e.g. 'Paris', 'Goa', 'Lower Manhattan'). | |
| childrenAges | No | Age of each child at check-in. Length should equal `children`. | |
| guestNationality | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 guest nationality (e.g. 'US', 'GB'). Affects supplier pricing. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open world; description adds context about return format (JSON with ref and supplierRoomId) and booking implications. Does not contradict annotations, but could have noted pagination or rate limits. Still adds value 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a short flow. Purpose is front-loaded, every sentence is informative. No fluff.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the return structure and how to use it in subsequent steps. Provides complete context for a search tool with 9 parameters, lacking only minor details like pagination.
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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description only adds specific guidance on using 'keywords' for narrowing. For a high-coverage schema, baseline 3 is appropriate; marginal additional value.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'search', resource 'live hotel availability', and scope 'destination and date range'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_rooms by explicitly stating when to use each.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use (searching for hotels), when-not-to-use (for other rooms use get_rooms, for booking use get_checkout_quote then create_checkout), and alternatives, all in a clear sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
