search_catalogSearch published destinations and collections by keyword. Returns existing text, not live offers or generated answers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | 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?
The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by clarifying that results are pre-existing text rather than dynamically generated or live content.
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 entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the operation and then adds the key behavioral qualifier. No words are wasted, and nothing is redundantly repeated from the schema or annotations.
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 single-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete. It tells an agent what is searched, what the query means, and what type of content will be returned.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the query parameter is a keyword and that search applies to destinations and collections, but it gives no detail about which fields are searched or how matching behaves. This is adequate but minimal.
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: 'Search published destinations and collections by keyword.' It also differentiates the tool from siblings by noting it returns 'existing text, not live offers or generated answers,' so an agent can distinguish it from tools like search_experiences.
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 clear usage context and an explicit exclusion: it searches published catalog text rather than live offers or generated answers. However, it does not name an alternative tool for those cases, so it falls just short of a 5.
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.