Irmu

Read a Booking.com property

booking_hotel

Read one Booking.com property page -- price, rating, rooms, facilities -- priced for the stay given. Takes the property url, e.g. from a booking_search result. Spends a flat number of credits, refunded if the page could not be read. If status is "queued" or "running", call crawl_poll with the job_id to collect it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "booking_hotel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The Booking.com property page, e.g. https://www.booking.com/hotel/it/hotel-name.html. Its own query string is ignored: the stay below is what is priced.
`city`	No	The city inside that country to appear to browse from, as the pool spells it: letters, digits, hyphens or underscores, e.g. berlin or new_york. Requires country. Doubles the price of the crawl.
`rooms`	No	How many rooms they need.
`adults`	No	How many adults are staying.
`checkin`	No	The first night, as YYYY-MM-DD, today or later. Requires checkout. Without dates Booking prices nothing.
`country`	No	The country to appear to browse from, as a two-letter ISO 3166-1 code such as es, us or de. Free. Required to use city.
`premium`	No	Fetch through the premium proxy pool instead of the standard one. Costs more; use it for targets that refuse ordinary requests.
`checkout`	No	The day you leave, as YYYY-MM-DD, after checkin. Requires checkin.
`currency`	No	The currency to price in, as a three-letter ISO 4217 code such as EUR. Left to Booking when absent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it costs a flat number of credits, those credits are refunded if the page could not be read, and queued/running jobs must be collected via `crawl_poll`. This adds concrete cost, failure, and async-job semantics that an agent would not infer from the annotations alone.

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 four compact sentences with no wasted language. It front-loads the core action and follows with URL source, credit behavior, and async polling instructions in a logical order.

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?

For a nine-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides strong operational context: what is read, where the URL comes from, credit/refund behavior, and how to handle queued jobs. It only lightly describes the returned page fields and does not fully specify the response shape, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all nine parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces that the URL comes from a `booking_search` result and that pricing is for the given stay, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one Booking.com property page', then enumerates the returned data: 'price, rating, rooms, facilities'. It also scopes the read to the given stay and identifies the URL source from `booking_search`, making it distinguishable 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly indicates the tool takes a property URL, such as one from a `booking_search` result, and explains what to do when the result is asynchronous: call `crawl_poll` with the `job_id` if `status` is 'queued' or 'running'. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool, but the intended usage is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Irmu tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?