GetMyHotels

Search

search

Read-only

Search 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

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?