Skiplagged MCP

Skiplagged Hotel Search

sk_hotels_search

Read-only

Search Skiplagged for hotels in a city with specific check-in and check-out dates, including ratings and pricing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	Yes	City name to search for hotels (will be matched against available cities)
`sort`	No	Sort hotels by price (cheapest first), ranking (highest rated first), value (best value rating), or discount (best deals first, default when deals available)	value
`limit`	No	Maximum number of hotels to return (default: 12, max: 100)
`offset`	No	Number of hotels to skip for pagination (default: 0)
`checkin`	Yes	Check-in date (YYYY-MM-DD format)
`checkout`	Yes	Check-out date (YYYY-MM-DD format)
`numRooms`	No	Number of rooms (default: 1, max: 9)
`numAdults`	No	Number of adults (default: 2, max: 10)
`numChildren`	No	Number of children (default: 0, max: 10)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`results`	Yes
`searchUrl`	Yes	Complete search URL with all parameters
`pagination`	Yes	Result pagination information

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'including ratings and pricing,' which hints at output content but does not expand on behavioral traits like pagination (implicit from params), rate limits, or data freshness. With annotations covering read-only behavior, the description provides marginal additional transparency.

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 a single, 14-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word is purposeful; there is no redundancy, tangential detail, or wasted text. It is a model of conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core action (search hotels by city and dates) but does not mention additional configurable aspects like sorting, pagination, or number of guests/rooms, which are all present in the schema. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description could briefly note the tool's flexibility to aid the agent in deciding to use it for varied needs. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, with each parameter already documented. The tool description only mentions 'city' and 'check-in/check-out dates' in general terms, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'hotels' on Skiplagged, with specific parameters (city, dates) and expected output (ratings, pricing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sk_cars_search (cars) and sk_flights_search (flights) by focusing only on hotels.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sk_hotel_details for specific hotel info, or other search tools). No when/when-not conditions or context for exclusion are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and purpose.

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

All Skiplagged MCP tools Inspect

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of travel search (cars, flights, hotels, flexible calendars, FAQs, location resolution) with no significant overlap. Even similar-seeming tools like flex_departure_calendar and destinations_anywhere have clearly different inputs and outputs.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the 'sk_' prefix and use snake_case, but the word order varies: some are noun_search (sk_cars_search), others verb_noun (sk_resolve_iata), and some have unusual forms like sk_destinations_anywhere. This mix of verb-first and noun-first patterns reduces consistency.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a travel search server, covering the major verticals (flights, hotels, cars) plus auxiliary functions (FAQ, location resolution, flexible date exploration). Each tool earns its place without overwhelming the agent.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core search and discovery needs for flights, hotels, cars, and flexible travel. However, missing reverse IATA resolution (code to city) and lack of any 'details' tool for flights (only hotel_details exists) are minor gaps that agents could work around.

Resources

Need Help?