[tourradar] Use this when the user has questions about a tour that might be answered in the FAQ section.
Returns a paginated list of frequently asked questions and answers about a specific tour, covering topics like inclusions, requirements, and policies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number. Default is 1 | |
| tourId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination ('paginated list') and the content coverage (inclusions, requirements, policies), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or response structure, which are relevant for an API tool.
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 sentences: a usage trigger and a result summary. No unnecessary details, front-loaded with the key use case. Very concise and well-structured.
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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: when to use, what it returns (paginated FAQ list), and topic focus. It does not outline exact response fields, but that is not essential for this type of lookup tool. It is fairly complete for its context.
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% (page is described, but tourId is not). The description adds minimal semantic value for parameters: 'about a specific tour' implies tourId but does not explain it, and the page parameter is not mentioned at all. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 returns a paginated list of frequently asked questions and answers about a specific tour. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a resource ('FAQ section'), and the context about user questions distinguishes it from sibling tools like tour details or departures.
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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use this when the user has questions about a tour that might be answered in the FAQ section.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear and actionable.
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.