Check one booking you submitted, using the read token returned at submission. Use it to find out whether the traveller has confirmed yet: confirmed is false until they click the emailed link, and while it is false nothing is being monitored. Check here before telling your user their booking is being tracked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | The read_token from submit_hotel_booking. |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the meaning of the 'confirmed' field, that it is false until the traveller clicks the emailed link, and that nothing is monitored while it is false. This is valuable context beyond a simple status-check description.
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 with no filler. It leads with the core operation, then adds the most important behavioral nuance and a practical check-before-claiming instruction. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the token source, the meaning of the key status field, and when to use the tool. No important calling context is missing.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter with 'The read_token from submit_hotel_booking.' The description echoes this by saying 'using the read token returned at submission,' but adds no new formatting or validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check one booking you submitted', using the read token returned at submission. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling submit_hotel_booking by focusing on post-submission status checking.
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 explicitly says when to use this tool: to find out whether the traveller has confirmed, and specifically to 'Check here before telling your user their booking is being tracked.' This gives an actionable condition and prevents premature monitoring claims.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.