Returns stays from the NomadStays database filtered by continent. Search by continent name (e.g., 'Europe', 'Asia', 'Africa', 'North America', 'South America', 'Oceania')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 15) | |
| continent | Yes | Continent name or partial match (e.g., 'Europe', 'Asia', 'Africa') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / continent / descriptionPrevious value: -"Continent name (e.g., 'Europe', 'Asia', 'Africa')"New value: +"Continent name or partial match (e.g., 'Europe', 'Asia', 'Africa')"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum number of stays to return (default: 15)"New value: +"Maximum number of results to return (default: 15)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('from the NomadStays database') but does not disclose details like default pagination or return format, which is acceptable given annotations cover the key behavioral trait.
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 short sentences with the main purpose in the first sentence and continent examples in the second. No redundant words or repetition; every word adds value.
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 read-only filter tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is returned and how to search, while the schema handles parameter details. It does not mention other filter alternatives, but that is not necessary for this tool's functionality.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds continent examples, but the schema already defines 'continent' as 'Continent name or partial match' with examples, so the added value is marginal. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description but is fully explained in 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 'Returns stays from the NomadStays database filtered by continent,' using a specific verb and resource. It also provides continent examples, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getStaysByCountry or getStaysByAmenities.
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 gives clear context: it is used when searching stays by continent name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the continent filter is unambiguous and the examples make the usage obvious.
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.