Skip to main content
Glama

MolTravel

by com.moltravel

trivago_trivago-destination-price-trends

[trivago] Forecast monthly hotel price trends for a destination — average, minimum, and maximum nightly rate by star rating, across a date window. Use for planning questions like "when is the cheapest month to visit X" or "how do prices change through the year" — this is a forecasting tool, not a live-availability search.

Additional Information: {"knownInformation":{"currentYear":"2026","today":"2026-09-01"}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes Destination query. Accepts two formats: - Free-text destination name, e.g. "Berlin", "Paris", "New York". - Coordinate pair in the format lat:<latitude>,long:<longitude>, e.g. "lat:52.52,long:13.405". The nearest destination to those coordinates is used. Latitude must be in [-90, 90] and longitude in [-180, 180].
countryNoISO alpha-2 country code that determines market-specific pricing and content. Default: US.US
currencyNoISO 4217 currency code used to display prices. Default: USD.USD
languageNoLanguage code for translated content (e.g. EN_US, DE_DE, ZH_HANS_CN). Default: EN_US.EN_US
end_monthNo Optional end year-month in YYYY-MM format (e.g. 2026-12). Must not be before start_month. Requires start_month to also be set.
start_monthNo Optional start year-month in YYYY-MM format (e.g. 2026-06). When omitted, the bridge defaults to the current month plus the next two months. It must be set when end_month is set.
hotel_ratingNo The hotel star ratings to include in the price statistics. Only 3, 4, and 5-star hotels are supported — forecasted price statistics are not available for 1 or 2-star hotels. Set true or false for each rating. Multiple ratings can be selected. When no rating is selected, the results default to 3-star hotels only.

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 usefully clarifies that the tool returns forecasts/trends rather than live availability, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose forecasting caveats, data limitations, or what the response contains beyond the high-level metrics already 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 focused sentences that front-load the core purpose and use cases, followed by a compact date-context note. There is no redundant restatement of schema fields and every sentence contributes to tool selection or invocation.

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 seven parameters, a nested hotel_rating object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It also provides current date context through knownInformation. Gaps remain around result shape and forecasting limitations, but the schema supplies most operational details.

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%, including formats, defaults, enums, and constraints for query, country, currency, language, start_month, end_month, and hotel_rating. The description adds only conceptual framing about monthly trends and date windows, so it correctly relies on the schema for parameter detail.

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 names the operation ('Forecast monthly hotel price trends') and the resource ('a destination'), and specifies the outputs: average, minimum, and maximum nightly rate by star rating across a date window. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from a live-availability search, which differentiates it from sibling accommodation-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 gives clear use cases: planning questions like 'when is the cheapest month to visit X' and 'how do prices change through the year'. It also states when not to use it — 'this is a forecasting tool, not a live-availability search' — though it does not name the specific alternative sibling tool to select instead.

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