NuVista Haven MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Live availability" usefully signals a real-time, non-cached read, but the description says nothing about whether the operation is side-effect free, whether it hits rate limits, or what happens for invalid or unavailable date ranges.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope qualifier (property, date range) is placed immediately, so an agent can act on it without further reading.

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?

The tool is simple, all three parameters are fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, with zero annotations the description should at least clarify how this differs from the quote/property siblings, and it does not.

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 100%, so the schema already defines property, check_in, and check_out with formats and examples. The description only adds the notion of a date range spanning the two dates, which is a marginal gain over structured data; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (availability) scoped to a property and date range, which is clearly distinct from get_quote, get_property_details, and search_properties. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_quote or search_properties. The word "live" hints at a real-time query rather than cached inventory, but nothing tells the agent under what conditions this tool should be chosen over its siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the URL's domain. It does not say whether the property must exist, whether a missing/empty check_in/check_out changes the link, whether the link is static or session-generated, or anything about auth or rate limits.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the claim it makes, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but a three-parameter tool with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations needs far more than one clause. The relationship between the date parameters and the generated URL is entirely unaddressed.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only implies the 'property' input via 'for a property' and says nothing about what check_in and check_out do or why they default to empty strings.

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?

States a specific resource (a booking URL) and its domain (nuvistahaven.com) for a given property, so the agent knows what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling get_quote, which likely also produces a booking-related URL, leaving some ambiguity about when this one is the right choice.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among the four siblings (check_availability, get_property_details, get_quote, search_properties). The agent must infer that this is the final 'produce the booking URL' step from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: the data source is nuvistahaven.com and unknown values are returned as null rather than guessed, which tells the agent how to interpret gaps. It does not state read-only nature, auth requirements, or what happens if the property identifier is unrecognized.

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?

Four short sentences, with the core purpose and returned fields front-loaded, followed by example questions and a data-provenance caveat. Every sentence adds something, though the structure is slightly fragmented across lines.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value shape needn't be described, and the null-semantics note usefully supplements it. The remaining gap is the identifier contract for the required property parameter, which nothing in the description or schema resolves.

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?

One required parameter (property) with 0% schema description coverage. The description never clarifies what form the identifier takes — a name, slug, or ID — nor how to obtain a valid value (e.g., from search_properties). The schema and description together leave the parameter's expected format undefined.

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?

States a specific resource (retrieves facts about a single property) and enumerates the fact categories returned: bedrooms, sleeps, bathrooms, amenities, highlights. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_properties (listing) and check_availability (dates), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 offers example questions it answers ("does it have a hot tub?", "how many bedrooms?"), which implies usage for fact lookups rather than availability or pricing. However, it never says when NOT to use it or routes the agent to search_properties for discovery or get_quote for pricing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: rates are live from Hospitable and the total is flagged as a 'partial estimate' when the cleaning fee is unavailable. That is genuinely useful edge-case disclosure. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, whether the quote is guaranteed or time-limited, or any rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the pricing formula, with no filler. Every sentence carries information, though the middle 'rates are live from Hospitable' line is terse enough to read as vendor trivia rather than agent-relevant guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. The description covers the computation and the partial-estimate edge case, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage it leaves an agent guessing about input formats and whether the quote implies a booking hold.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Nights' implies check_in/check_out are dates, but the description never explains the date format, whether 'property' is an ID or name, or what 'guests' affects (e.g. pricing tiers or capacity limits).

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?

States a specific verb (quote) and resource (a stay), and even gives the computation model ('nightly rate x nights + cleaning fee'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like check_availability or get_property_details, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus check_availability, get_booking_link, or get_property_details, and no prerequisites are given. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Quote a stay'; nothing is said about required inputs or when a quote is inappropriate (e.g. unverified availability).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the implied read-only nature of "search." No mention of result limits, pagination, ranking, or whether unfiltered searches are allowed, all of which matter for a tool with zero required parameters.

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 five-word sentence with zero padding, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for an unannotated search tool with all-optional parameters and four siblings, the description omits everything an agent needs for correct routing and invocation. It is not complete enough given the tool's role.

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 100% and each of the three parameters has its own inline description with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case for full coverage.

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?

It names a verb ("Search") and a resource ("NuVista Haven vacation rentals"), but this is close to a restatement of the title "Search Properties" with only the corpus brand swapped in. It gives no indication of what can be searched or how results differ from sibling tools like get_property_details.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus check_availability, get_quote, or get_property_details, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. The agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point from the name alone.

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