Hotel Booking AI MCP

Create Booking

create_booking

Destructive

Create a hotel booking from a verified rate. A valid user_key is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`adults`	Yes	Number of adults in each room
`children`	No	Number of children in each room
`currency`	Yes	Three-letter booking currency code
`hotel_id`	Yes	TourMind hotel identifier
`user_key`	Yes	TourMind user key required for authenticated ToC booking operations
`rate_code`	Yes	Verified rate code returned by check_room_availability
`guest_name`	Yes	Guest full legal name
`room_count`	Yes	Number of rooms using the same occupancy
`total_price`	Yes	Verified total booking price
`check_in_date`	Yes	Check-in date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`children_ages`	No	Ages of the children in each room, each from 0 to 17
`contact_email`	No	Contact email for booking status notifications
`check_out_date`	Yes	Check-out date in YYYY-MM-DD format

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / adults / description

Previous value: -"Number of adults per room"New value: +"Number of adults in each room"

addedInput schema / properties / children

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Number of children in each room",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / children_ages

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Ages of the children in each room, each from 0 to 17",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "null",
+    "array"
+  ]
+}

changedInput schema / properties / room_count / description

Previous value: -"Number of rooms"New value: +"Number of rooms using the same occupancy"

First observedAug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the mutation and external side-effect nature is covered. The description adds the prerequisite of a verified rate and the user_key requirement, which is helpful, but it does not disclose what happens on success, whether the booking is immediately confirmed, or whether charges are incurred. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and its essential precondition, and the second states the required authentication. Every word earns its place and the key constraint is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool. It captures the crucial verified-rate and user_key requirements. It could have mentioned the relationship to check_room_availability more explicitly in the description itself, but the schema already establishes that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 13 parameters. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as the rate_code being tied to check_room_availability. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource — 'Create a hotel booking' — and adds a key qualifier, 'from a verified rate,' which distinguishes it from query_booking, cancel_booking, and rate-checking sibling tools. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for creating bookings only after a rate has been verified and requires a valid user_key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over read-only or cancellation tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Hotel Booking AI MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.