Lists the signed-in host's bookings (newest first), paged. Returns id, property id, check-in/check-out dates, status, and whether a check-in link and guest contact exist — never the guest's email, phone, or documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Rows to skip, for paging. Defaults to 0. | |
| take | No | Rows to return, max 50. Defaults to 20. |
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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: results are newest first, paged, and explicitly never include guest email, phone, or documents. This privacy guarantee is important for an agent deciding whether this tool fits a request.
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 compact sentences cover scope, ordering, paging, return fields, and exclusions. Every phrase carries information, and the core action is front-loaded.
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 list tool with a fully documented schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, what is never returned, and the paging behavior, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 input schema already fully documents skip and take, including defaults and max value, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds that results are paged, which reinforces the schema without adding new parameter-level detail.
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 states the tool lists the signed-in host's bookings, with explicit ordering and paging. It distinguishes itself from sibling resources like list_properties and send_guest_checkin_link by naming the exact resource and scope.
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 makes clear this is for retrieving the signed-in host's bookings and that results are paginated. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or prefer a sibling, but the resource and scope are specific enough for an agent to select it correctly.
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 concern: guest form completion, usage/limits, bookings, properties, SES statuses, and sending links. Even the two booking-related tools are separated by intent (form status vs. booking metadata/link existence).
All names follow a predictable verb_noun pattern: get_* for status/summary queries, list_* for collections, and send_* for the single action. Minor acronym styling (ses_statuses, checkin_link) does not break the pattern.
Six tools is well-scoped for a guest check-in and property-management helper. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundancy or bloat.
The server covers the main host workflows: viewing properties/bookings, checking guest form completion, sending/resending check-in links, and monitoring SES compliance status. Minor gaps exist (e.g. no way to trigger SES submission or view form content), but these appear deliberately out of scope.