list_collectionsList published editorial collections of hand-picked experiences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collections | Yes |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety behavior. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that only 'published' editorial collections are returned, which is not present in the annotations or schema.
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?
A single, compact sentence that leads with the action and object, then adds the key qualifiers. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.
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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It clearly communicates the tool's scope without needing to explain return values, which are covered by the output schema.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('collections') and adds qualifiers ('published editorial collections of hand-picked experiences') that define scope and distinguish it from related tools like get_collection. An agent can immediately understand what this tool returns and what it is not.
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 implies usage for listing collections versus retrieving a specific collection, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_collection or search_catalog. No alternative guidance or exclusions are provided.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: search, detail, reviews, compare, booking link, collections, and destinations each target a different operation. The only mild overlap is between get_booking_link and get_experience since get_experience already includes a booking URL, but the descriptions clarify the checkout-specific purpose.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_destinations, get_experience, search_experiences, create_share_list. The one deviation is nearest_destination, which uses an adjective_noun form instead of a verb, but it is still readable and predictable.
Eleven tools is well within the ideal range and each tool contributes to a coherent workflow: discovery, details, comparison, sharing, and booking links. No tool feels redundant or excessive, and the set is appropriately scoped for an experience-booking affiliate server.
The core lifecycle is well covered: find destinations, search experiences, inspect details, read reviews, compare options, generate booking links, and create shared shortlists. Minor gaps exist around shortlist management—there is no way to read or delete a created share list beyond its expiry—but agents can still complete the main user journey without dead ends.