Returns stays from the NomadStays database. Search by 2-letter country code (e.g., 'MA', 'US') or country name (e.g., 'Antigua' matches 'Antigua and Barbuda')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 15) | |
| countrycode | Yes | 2-letter country code (e.g., 'MA', 'US') or partial country name (e.g., 'Antigua') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / countrycode / descriptionPrevious value: -"2-letter ISO country code (e.g. 'ES', 'PT') OR partial country name"New value: +"2-letter country code (e.g., 'MA', 'US') or partial country name (e.g., 'Antigua')"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum number of stays to return (default: 15)"New value: +"Maximum number of results to return (default: 15)"Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "countrycode"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: partial country names are matched (e.g., 'Antigua' matches 'Antigua and Barbuda'). It doesn't discuss pagination or limits, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.
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 main action, and every word earns its place. No filler or 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?
For a simple read-only search tool, the description covers the essential aspects: entity, search criteria, and matching behavior. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap since the intent is clear, though the return structure is not described.
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 example values for countrycode and clarifies partial matching behavior, but does not add meaning for the limit parameter beyond what the schema already states.
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 'Returns stays from the NomadStays database' with a specific verb+resource. The tool name 'getStaysByCountry' and the search criteria (country code or name) distinguish it from sibling tools like getStaysByContinent and getStaysByLocation.
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 clearly implies use when filtering by country, with explicit examples of accepted inputs. However, it does not explicitly exclude or contrast with alternatives like getStaysByContinent or getStaysByLocation, making the guidance clear but not fully explicit.
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.