List valid room types for a specific Stay's rooms (roomTypeFK in createStayRoom/updateStayRoom). Valid values depend on the Stay: boutique Stays choose from a fixed boutique type range; standard Stays are restricted to types already used on one of their own rooms. Requires NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stayId | Yes | The Stay's EntryID |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context about the token requirement and how valid values differ by stay type. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the conditional behavior of the returned options.
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 tightly written sentences: the first states the core action, the second explains the dependency rule, and the third notes the auth requirement. No wasted words.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description makes the return type clear ('List valid room types') and explains the two categories of valid values. Combined with the single well-documented parameter and safety annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 schema already fully describes stayId as 'The Stay's EntryID' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces its role by linking to specific stay rooms but does not add new format or type details beyond the schema.
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 'List valid room types for a specific Stay's rooms' and explicitly ties it to roomTypeFK in createStayRoom/updateStayRoom. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like getStayTypeOptions or getRoomFacilityOptions.
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?
It specifies the use case is to get valid room types for a stay's rooms, with a clear dependency on stay type (boutique vs standard). It directly references the context of roomTypeFK in createStayRoom/updateStayRoom, making when-to-use clear, though it does not explicitly 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 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.
