get_hotel_roomsRoom types, nightly prices (ETB), capacity and amenities for a hotel listed on BinaSmart. Use the slug from search_places (is_hotel = true).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Hotel slug from search_places |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the returned content (room types, prices, capacity, amenities) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling or empty-result behavior.
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?
Two sentences, both informative and free of filler. The description front-loads the tool's output scope and then provides the input prerequisite, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with a 100%-covered schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what data is returned and how to obtain the required slug. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the explicit list of data categories, though the exact response shape remains unspecified.
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 only parameter, slug, has full schema-description coverage ('Hotel slug from search_places'), and the tool description repeats this same guidance. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, the description adds no semantic value beyond the baseline.
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 clearly identifies the resource (hotel listed on BinaSmart) and the data returned: room types, nightly prices in ETB, capacity, and amenities. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list' and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the content is unmistakable.
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?
The description gives explicit context on how to invoke the tool: use the slug from search_places with is_hotel = true. It provides a clear prerequisite but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: ride tools cleanly split quoting, booking, status, and cancellation; list_events and list_films are clearly separated between in-person events and online films; search_places points to dedicated hotel/hospital detail tools. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities.
All names are lowercase snake_case with a leading verb and a domain object, which makes the pattern predictable. There are minor inconsistencies: read operations mix list_ and get_, and get_ethiopia_guide is singular despite being able to return a collection of guides when called without a slug.
10 tools is well-scoped for a multi-vertical consumer platform. Each tool earns its place by covering a necessary step in ride booking, place discovery, entertainment listings, or guide access, with no redundant additions.
The ride lifecycle is well covered with quote, request, status, and cancel, and search_places feeds cleanly into hotel and hospital detail tools. Minor gaps exist for generic non-hotel/hospital place details and for transactional booking/rental actions, but those are partially handled via returned external URLs.