GetMyHotels

Get checkout quote

get_checkout_quote

Read-only

Re-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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

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 ('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.

All GetMyHotels 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?