Find all stays with WiFi download speed greater than 10Mbps, listed and not suspended.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 15) | |
| minWiFiDownloadSpeed | No | Minimum WiFi download speed in Mbps (default: 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "minWiFiDownloadSpeed"
-]New value: +[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true and destructiveHint:false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'listed and not suspended' filter, which is useful context, but does not disclose other behavioral details like pagination, response format, or default limits. Since annotations cover the main safety aspects, the description provides moderate additional value.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core filter criteria and contains no extraneous words. Every piece of information is relevant and clearly structured.
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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and filtering criteria. It omits mention of limit/pagination behavior, but the schema documents the limit parameter, and the annotations cover safety. A brief note on result ordering or pagination would make it more complete, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% for the two parameters, and each has a clear description. The description adds semantic value by specifying 'greater than' for minWiFiDownloadSpeed, clarifying an exclusive comparison, and it highlights the default threshold (10Mbps). This goes beyond simply restating 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 explicitly states the verb 'find', the resource 'stays', and the specific filter criteria: WiFi download speed greater than 10Mbps, plus status filters (listed, not suspended). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getStaysByAmenities or getStaysByBudget which filter by other attributes.
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 when to use this tool (when searching for stays with fast WiFi), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the large number of similar sibling filter tools, explicit guidance such as 'for other filters see getStaysBy*' would improve clarity. However, the core use case is clear.
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.