Hüttentouren

Recommend hut-to-hut tours

recommend_tours

Read-only

Recommend fitting hut-to-hut tours using structured tour data and fresh availability rules. Each result includes url, the canonical huettentouren.org detail page — link users there, not to any upstream source.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Preferred end date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
`from`	No	Preferred start date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
`months`	No	Preferred months in YYYY-MM format.
`people`	No	Number of people in the group.
`privacy`	No	Privacy controls for non-blocking preference insight capture.
`transport`	No	Preferred access mode.
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of results to return.
`difficulties`	No	Allowed tour difficulty labels.
`durationMaxDays`	No	Maximum tour duration in days.
`durationMinDays`	No	Minimum tour duration in days.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`reasonCodes`	Yes
`resultStatus`	Yes
`noMatchReason`	Yes
`freshnessPolicy`	Yes
`normalizedInput`	Yes
`degradationFlags`	Yes
`recommendedRouteIds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedApr 23, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / url

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Canonical huettentouren.org detail page. Use this when linking users to the tour.",
+  "format": "uri",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "routeId",
-  "name",
-  "region",
-  "status",
-  "score",
-  "reasons",
-  "sampleStartDates",
-  "availability"
-]New value: +[
+  "routeId",
+  "name",
+  "region",
+  "url",
+  "status",
+  "score",
+  "reasons",
+  "sampleStartDates",
+  "availability"
+]

First observedApr 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning 'fresh availability rules' and the canonical URL requirement, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the essential purpose and output format. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, but it provides high-level context about how parameters are used (e.g., structured data, availability rules). 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 clearly states it recommends hut-to-hut tours using structured data and availability rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'fetch' and 'search' by specifying the focus on recommendations and linking to canonical pages.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for recommending tours based on preferences, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'search' or 'fetch'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

All Hüttentouren 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.

Resources

Need Help?