get_filtersUse this to look up the comfort signals and travel styles that search_hotels accepts, when the user's wish doesn't map clearly to one. Returns every filter (id, name, description, category, whether it's a must-have) and every travel style. Plain names also work in search_hotels tags ('quiet', 'wifi'). Read-only, no sign-in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful context by describing the returned fields and noting that no sign-in is required. Since there is no output schema, the return-shape summary is especially valuable, though it does not cover error cases or limits.
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 short and front-loaded, starting with the primary use case before listing return contents and the search_hotels tag shortcut. Every sentence contributes useful selection or interpretation context.
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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It explains when to use it, what it returns, and how the returned values relate to search_hotels.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden beyond establishing that the call is a parameterless lookup. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: looking up comfort signals and travel styles accepted by search_hotels. It also distinguishes the tool from search_hotels by framing it as the lookup path when the user's wish does not map clearly to a filter.
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 gives an explicit usage condition: use this when the user's wish doesn't map clearly to a filter or travel style. It also names the alternative path by noting that plain names work directly in search_hotels tags, which helps an agent choose between lookup and search.
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.