Skip to main content
Glama

MolTravel

by com.moltravel

tourradar_web-ask-question

[tourradar] Use this when the user wants to ASK A QUESTION about a tour or operator WITHOUT committing to a booking.

Two modes:

  • mode "tour": a question about a specific tour. Requires tourId. The departureDate is OPTIONAL here — if the customer has not picked a date, omit it and the backend will pick the nearest real departure. Do NOT fabricate a date.

  • mode "operator": a general/operator-level question. Requires operatorId and no tour.

Always provide the customer's real contact details (email, first/last name; phone optional) and their actual question text. Never fabricate or assume user data — ask for missing information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesCustomer email address. If email is not given by the customer, please ask before executing this tool. Never generate an email yourself.
entityYesWhat the question is about. Pick exactly one mode: "tour" (carries `tourId` + optional departure/pax) or "operator" (carries `operatorId`). A tour question cannot carry an operator id and vice versa.
lastNameYesCustomer last name.
questionYesThe customer's actual question text. Required and must be non-empty. This is the question the customer wants answered.
firstNameYesCustomer first name.
phoneNumberNoCustomer phone number in E-164 format. Optional but recommended. Never put a fake phone number; if the customer does not provide one, skip this field.
agentInformationNoOptional agent context about the customer's needs/preferences. Helps Customer Support. The customer's question stays primary; this is appended as extra context.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that no booking is created, that omitting departureDate lets the backend pick the nearest departure, and that user data must be real. However, it does not mention side effects like sending an inquiry to the operator, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately long but well-structured: a purpose sentence, mode breakdown, and user-data rules. Every section is useful, and the bullet-like layout aids scanning, though it does repeat some schema information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers most necessary context: modes, required IDs, optional date behavior, and data integrity rules. The main gap is what the tool returns or confirms after sending the question, but for a submission-style tool this is not a critical omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds valuable semantics: it clarifies the entity modes, explains that departureDate is optional and should not be fabricated, and emphasizes using real contact details. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'ASK A QUESTION about a tour or operator WITHOUT committing to a booking,' which names the verb (ask), resource (tour/operator), and constraint (no booking). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like booking or search tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description opens with 'Use this when...' and details two modes (tour vs operator) with required IDs. It also includes exclusions ('WITHOUT committing to a booking') and data-handling rules, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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

All MolTravel toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources