VistaLink Hotels

Chat about hotels

chat_about_hotels

Read-only

Conversational hotel search for natural-language requests, comparisons and subjective preferences. Slower than search_hotels. Requires signing in (a linked Parley account) or an API key.

    Guest context (travel style, purpose, accessibility needs, loyalty
    programs, dietary needs) can be passed in the context parameter as a
    JSON object.

    Clarifications: if a previous response included a
    ``clarification_pending`` payload, show the question to the user and
    either pass ``clarification_id`` + ``clarification_option_id`` for the
    chosen option, or pass the user's free-text answer in ``message`` and
    leave the clarification params empty.

    Args:
        message: The user's message or question
        session_id: Session id from a previous response to continue the conversation (empty for a new session)
        currency: Currency code for prices (default EUR)
        context: JSON object with guest context (empty to skip). Example: {"travel_style": "luxury", "purpose": "honeymoon", "accessibility": "wheelchair", "loyalty_programs": ["Marriott Bonvoy"], "dietary": "vegetarian"}
        clarification_id: When replying to a prior clarification, the id from ``clarification_pending.clarification_id`` in that response.
        clarification_option_id: When replying to a prior clarification, the id of the option the user selected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`context`	No
`message`	Yes
`currency`	No	EUR
`session_id`	No
`clarification_id`	No
`clarification_option_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material behavior beyond the annotations: it requires authentication, is slower than search_hotels, is non-idempotent (session continuity changes results), and it documents the clarification flow. It doesn't cover rate limits or the shape of responses beyond clarification_pending, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the routing against search_hotels, then grouped into paragraph blocks for authentication, context, clarification handling, and args. It is appropriately sized for a 6-parameter conversational tool with zero schema coverage, though the clarification paragraph is slightly repetitive in wording.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given six parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and a stateful multi-turn flow, the description supplies authentication requirements, session continuation, guest-context encoding, the full clarification protocol, and the comparison to the sibling tool. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly across turns.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the entire parameter burden, and it does. It explains message, session_id continuation semantics, currency with default, context as a JSON object with a concrete example, and exactly how clarification_id and clarification_option_id are sourced and used. No parameter is left ambiguous.

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 a specific verb+resource (conversational hotel search) and explicitly separates it from the sibling search_hotels by listing the use cases it handles: natural-language requests, comparisons, and subjective preferences. An agent can tell it apart from get_hotel_details and search_hotels without opening the schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states when to use this tool (natural-language, comparative, or subjective hotel requests), names the alternative (search_hotels) and gives a selecting condition (slower), and includes prerequisites (sign in or API key). This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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

All VistaLink Hotels tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?