add_special_requestAdd a special request to one of your bookings (e.g. extra pillows, late checkout, anniversary celebration). Requires connecting your Roomza account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes | The special request to add | |
| booking_id | Yes | The booking ID to add the request to (get this from get_my_trips) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
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 (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) indicate a non-destructive write operation. The description adds that the tool requires an authenticated Roomza account, which is relevant behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples, followed by a single prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is complete: it explains the action, gives examples, and states the account requirement. No missing information.
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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds example values (extra pillows, late checkout) but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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: 'Add a special request to one of your bookings'. It provides concrete examples (extra pillows, late checkout, anniversary celebration) and distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all read-only or search tools. No other sibling adds anything.
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 it (when you have a booking and want to add a special request) and includes a prerequisite ('Requires connecting your Roomza account'). It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but given the tool's unique role among siblings, the context is clear enough.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: searching, retrieving details, pricing, rooms, reviews, nearby places, user-specific actions (preferences, trips), booking, and presentation. The overlap between get_hotel and ask_about_hotel is intentional and clearly differentiated (ask is for supplementary questions), and get_hotel_rooms vs show_rooms are also distinct (list vs present).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_hotel, get_hotel_pricing, get_hotel_rooms, get_my_preferences, get_my_trips, get_nearby, get_recent_reviews, search_hotels, secure_room, show_rooms, add_special_request, ask_about_hotel. The only minor variation is 'ask_about_hotel' but it's still verb-based and follows the same structure.
Twelve tools is well within the optimal range for a domain of this scope. The toolset covers the core lifecycle (search, view, price, book, add request, view trips) plus supporting functions (reviews, nearby, user preferences, presentation). No redundant or superfluous tools exist.
The toolset covers the primary hotel intelligence and booking workflow thoroughly: search, detail, pricing, rooms, booking, special requests, and user data. Slight gap: no explicit cancellation or booking modification tool, but given the server's focus on intelligence and presentation, this is a minor omission that agents can work around.