[peek] Render activity tiles for a list of activity IDs, returning an embeddable widget URI
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID or comma separate list of activity IDs to render as tiles |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys the core operation (rendering) and output type (widget URI), implying a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not explicitly state whether modifications occur, error handling, or any side effects, so transparency is 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 that front-loads the [peek] tag, states the action, and specifies the return value. There is no redundant 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and output. It could explicitly mention that this is a read-only rendering action or add a note about valid ID requirements, but the core functionality is sufficiently described.
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 fully documents the only parameter 'id' with a description. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond repeating 'list of activity IDs', which matches the schema. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 renders activity tiles for a list of activity IDs and returns an embeddable widget URI. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like peek_experience_details or peek_search_experiences.
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 when you have activity IDs and need a widget URI, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned.
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.
Most tools are namespaced by vendor and resource, so ferry, tour, flight, hotel, and experience searches are broadly distinguishable. However, hotel search exists in both skiplagged and trivago, ferryhopper_search_trips is a deprecated duplicate of search_trips_v2, and several skiplagged calendar/anywhere tools overlap in flight-price discovery, which can cause misselection.
Naming conventions are mixed across the set: plain underscores (airports_search), vendor-prefixed underscores (ferryhopper_get_ports), redundant prefixes (skiplagged_sk_hotels_search, trivago_trivago-accommodation-search), and hyphenated sub-APIs (tourradar_b2b-tour-details, tourradar_vertex-tour-search). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern and at least one version-suffixed deprecated name.
With 56 tools, the server falls into the extreme-mismatch count band. The breadth is partly explained by eight vendor integrations, but many lookups, near-duplicate searches, and deprecated tools could be consolidated or split into focused MCP servers.
The tool surface covers most of the travel-planning lifecycle: airports, airlines, visa rules, FCDO advice, flights, hotels, cars, ferries, experiences, and tours including search, details, and tour booking. The main gaps are that only tours have an actual booking flow and there is no update/cancel or post-booking management.