Skip to main content
Glama

peek_search_experiences

[peek] Search for travel experiences with comprehensive filtering options. Returns available categories, tags, and regions with IDs for further filtering.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoWhen the user wants something w/ a specific keyword (bike, beer, art, etc) limit to experiences whose title contain a keyword. Never include location information.
tagIdNoWhen you have determined the user is interest in a specific vibe of activity (family friendly, romantic, etc) limit to only experiences with a specific tag (single tag ID)
latLngNoWhen the user wants something NEAR a specific place, but not necessarily IN a specific place, limit to only those near a given lat_lng. ex: "37.7799,-122.2822". Don't use this for regions, instead use the search_regions and provide a region id. this is a good fallback if a specific region is lacking inventory.
endDateNoReturn experiences that are available on or before this date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g., '2025-06-20' would return things taking place ON or BEFORE the 20th)
regionIdNoWhen you have determined the user wants something in a specific region (found w/ search_regions) limit to only a specific region ID
startDateNoReturn experiences that are available on or after this date. YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g., '2025-06-19')
categoryIdNoLimit to only a specific activity category

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 the tool returns categories, tags, and regions with IDs, which adds context about the output shape. However, it doesn't mention whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, or other side effects beyond 'search', which is generally safe but not explicitly stated.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds valuable detail about the return value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the rich parameter descriptions and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently outlines purpose and output highlights. It could mention the actual list of experiences returned and any result format details, but the 'returns categories, tags, and regions' hint provides useful context for a search tool. This is a minor gap for a 7-parameter tool with 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% and each of the 7 parameters has a detailed explanation with usage examples. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema is thorough, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Search[es] for travel experiences' and specifically notes it returns categories, tags, and regions with IDs for further filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like peek_experience_availability and peek_search_regions by naming the main search functionality and its filtering-oriented metadata output.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies it is the main search tool with 'comprehensive filtering options' but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use. However, parameter descriptions within the schema (e.g., latLng's 'Don't use this for regions, instead use the search_regions') provide some guidance, though that is not part of the description itself.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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 Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.