get_itineraryGet a full itinerary with all days and activities, sorted by day number and time slot. Public itineraries are readable without a token; private ones require the owning token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itinerary_id | Yes | The UUID of the itinerary |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that public itineraries are readable without a token and private ones require the owning token, which is an important authentication behavior. It also states the sorting order. For a simple read operation, this is sufficient behavioral insight.
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 at two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core action and output structure; the second adds essential auth context. Every word contributes value with no 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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (full itinerary with days and activities sorted) and its access behavior (token requirements). There are no missing details needed by an AI agent to use this tool correctly.
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 input schema has only one parameter (itinerary_id) with 100% description coverage in the schema (it describes it as 'The UUID of the itinerary'). The description adds no additional meaning or usage guidance for this parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'full itinerary with all days and activities', and adds sorting detail ('sorted by day number and time slot'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_itineraries' (which lists summaries) and 'get_content' (different resource type).
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 context on when to use (retrieve full itinerary) and mentions token requirements for public vs private itineraries. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or offer direct alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as noting that 'list_itineraries' is for getting a list of itinerary IDs.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct operation or resource: create, read, update, delete for itineraries; add/delete for activities and days; content/destination retrieval; pricing and booking services. The two aliases are explicitly marked as backward-compatible, so agents can still distinguish them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., create_itinerary, delete_activity, get_itinerary_dossier). Even the aliases (get_wp_content, search_wp_content) adhere to the same convention, ensuring predictability.
23 tools is on the higher side but justified by the domain's complexity: itinerary CRUD, day/activity management, content search, destination lookup, pricing, booking services, and dossier handling. Each tool serves a clear purpose, though minor consolidation could be possible.
Covers the full lifecycle for itineraries and most related entities. Missing operations like updating or deleting a day, or updating an activity, are minor gaps that agents can work around by recreating or using get_itinerary. The planning dossier and booking request tools add depth.