[tourradar] Use this when the user wants to see detailed information about a specific tour.
Fetches comprehensive tour details including itinerary, pricing, operator info, images, and booking links based on tour ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tourId | Yes | ||
| currency | No | Currency to return prices in. Use this only when the user explicitly asks for a specific currency. Otherwise the user's default (based on location) is used. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Fetches' and lists the output categories, but it omits prerequisites (e.g., where to obtain a valid tourId), error/not-found behavior, and any B2B-specific access constraints hinted at by the tool name.
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 two short sentences, with the use case front-loaded and the content list concise. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or 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?
For a simple fetch-by-ID tool, the description covers the main purpose and primary output categories. However, without an output schema and with only partial parameter documentation, it does not explain response structure, the optional currency parameter (though the schema covers it), or how to obtain a tourId, leaving some gaps for the agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 50%; tourId has no description in the schema. The description merely restates 'based on tour ID' without adding guidance on how to find or validate a tour ID, while currency is already well-documented in the schema and receives no added context.
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 a specific verb ('Fetches') and clearly identifies the resource ('comprehensive tour details' for a specific tour), listing key content categories (itinerary, pricing, operator info, images, booking links). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as tour-departures, tour-faq, or tour-map.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use this when the user wants to see detailed information about a specific tour,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the directive is unambiguous and sufficient for selection.
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.