Get available hotel offers for the current session dates.
REQUIREMENT:
- update_stay_dates should already be set
- hotel should come from previous search results
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| hotel_index | No | ||
| hotel_code_or_name | No | ||
| preferred_room_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals key prerequisites but does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, requires authentication, or how it errors if prerequisites are unmet. The 'get' verb implies a read, but the description is not richly transparent.
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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose followed by compact bullet requirements. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With 5 parameters, a required session_id, and 0% parameter coverage in the description, the tool definition is incomplete for correct invocation. It provides prerequisites but not operational detail on how to select the hotel or limit offers. The output schema covers returns, but input usage is under-specified.
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 schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only hints that the hotel should come from previous search results but does not explain hotel_index, hotel_code_or_name, limit, preferred_room_name, or session_id. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Get available hotel offers for the current session dates.' It clearly states the scope (session dates) and distinguishes from get_hotel_details or check_stay_price, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 REQUIREMENT section gives explicit context: update_stay_dates should already be set and the hotel should come from previous search results. This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.
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 clear distinct purposes, though 'update_user_profile' and 'update_user_profile_from_model' serve similar functions with different input methods, which could cause confusion. Overall, the boundaries are generally clear.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as 'search_hotels', 'update_stay_dates', and 'get_hotel_details'. No naming style mixing or irregularities.
With 20 tools covering hotels, homestays, flights, activities, restaurants, profile management, and session handling, the count is well-scoped for a travel assistant server. Each tool serves a distinct function without bloat.
The tool set covers core travel planning needs: search, details, offers, and profile management. However, it lacks a tool to actually confirm or book an offer, which is a noticeable gap for a complete booking flow.