[tourradar] Search for tours by title using AI-powered semantic search. Returns a list of matching tour IDs and titles. Use this when you need to look up a tour by name. When you know tour id, use b2b-tour-details tool to display details about specific tour
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Tour title or partial title to search for |
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 the semantic search nature and the return format (IDs and titles), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention any nuances like behavior on no matches, result ordering, or limits. This 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and includes a follow-up usage note about an alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.
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 one-parameter search tool, the description covers the purpose, output, and usage context, and points to an alternative. It doesn't have an output schema, but it does say what will be returned. Missing minor details like result count or ordering, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema describes it as 'Tour title or partial title to search for.' The description repeats 'by title' and doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as example formats or matching rules. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already covers the parameter.
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's function: 'Search for tours by title using AI-powered semantic search' and specifies the output ('matching tour IDs and titles'). It distinguishes itself from the b2b-tour-details tool by explicitly pointing to the alternative when a tour ID is known, and the focus on title-based lookup differentiates it from other search tools.
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you need to look up a tour by name.' It also names an alternative for a different scenario: 'When you know tour id, use b2b-tour-details tool.' This 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.