Check a specific room's availability for each night in a date range. Returns availability status (available/not available) for each night.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roomId | Yes | The unique identifier of the room (tbStaysRoom.EntryID) | |
| checkIn | Yes | Check-in date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| checkOut | Yes | Check-out date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / roomIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The unique identifier of the room (tbStaysRoom.EntryID)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / stayIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The unique identifier of the stay",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "stayId",
- "checkIn",
- "checkOut"
-]New value: +[
+ "roomId",
+ "checkIn",
+ "checkOut"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns per-night availability status, which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, authentication requirements, or date inclusivity nuances. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary information. It directly states the purpose and what is returned, making it highly efficient.
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 read-only tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return format (per-night availability status). It does not explain edge cases like whether checkOut is exclusive, but this is minor for the tool's simplicity. Given the richness of annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.
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%, with all three parameters (roomId, checkIn, checkOut) already documented in the input schema. The description only loosely refers to 'date range' without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: checking a specific room's availability for each night in a date range. The verb 'check' + resource 'room availability' + scope ('specific room', 'date range') distinguishes it from sibling tools like checkStayAvailability or getAvailabilityByMonth.
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 implies the use case—checking per-night availability for a specific room—which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools that might be more appropriate for other availability queries (e.g., findNearestAvailability).
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, with detailed descriptions differentiating the many getStaysBy* search variants and the four availability tools. However, the overlap between checkStayAvailability, getRoomAvailability, findNearestAvailability, and getAvailabilityByMonth could still cause confusion for an agent, though the descriptions largely mitigate this.
The tools mostly follow a verb-noun pattern with get*, update*, create*, and delete* dominating, but the mix of additional verbs (check, find, list, search, signup, book, quote, purchase, submit, save, reorder, upload) and inconsistent noun forms (Stay vs. Stays, MyStay vs. Stay) prevents a fully predictable naming scheme. CamelCase is consistent, but the verb variety is high.
With 76 tools, this server far exceeds the well-scoped range and even the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. While the platform covers multiple domains, this many tools is overwhelming for an agent and would likely be better split into focused sub-servers.
The tool surface is broad, covering search, stay management, applications, bookings, products, and help center. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps: no cancel booking, no delete stay, no delete application, and no way to update or delete a booking. These missing operations create potential dead ends for common workflows.