list_destinationsList the approved city destinations with their ids. Call first; other tools need a destinationId from this list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| destinations | 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the list contains only 'approved' destinations, each with ids, and this is a prerequisite for other tools. No contradiction is present.
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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the workflow guidance is in the second. Every sentence earns its place.
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 list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states what is returned (approved city destinations and ids), and why and when to call it. There are no missing details an agent would need to use the tool correctly.
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 on the description. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output and usage rather than parameters.
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: 'List the approved city destinations with their ids.' It also clarifies the role of this tool among siblings by noting other tools need a destinationId from this list. This clearly distinguishes it from tools like search_experiences or list_collections.
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 explicitly says 'Call first', giving a direct instruction on when this tool should be used. It also explains why: other tools need a destinationId from this list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.
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.