Journeyed: Los Angeles hotel facts

Fact sheet for one Los Angeles hotel

get_hotel

Read-onlyIdempotent

The fact sheet Journeyed holds for one Los Angeles area hotel: every verified fact (parking and its price, fees, pet rules, check-in and checkout times, pool, breakfast, accessibility and more) with its source URL and checked date, the Journeyed Score and what backs it, hotel class and awards, former names, straight-line, walking and driving distances to nearby landmarks, and the list of facts Journeyed does not know. Use it for any question about a named hotel. A fact listed under unknown is not on record at Journeyed, which is different from the hotel not offering it. It holds no reviews, room prices or availability.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hotel": "<hotel>"
    },
    "name": "get_hotel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hotel`	Yes	Hotel name (current or former), or its journeyed.org page URL. Examples: "The Anthem", "Santa Monica Proper Hotel".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	The journeyed.org page to cite.
`asOf`	No
`name`	No
`note`	No
`facts`	No
`found`	Yes
`phone`	No
`score`	No	The Journeyed Score (0 to 100) measures how much about the hotel is verified, not how good it is. backedBy says what it rests on.
`bestOf`	No
`market`	No
`nearby`	No
`address`	No
`sources`	No
`unknown`	No	Fact keys Journeyed has no verified value for at this hotel. Unknown, not "no".
`website`	No
`questions`	No
`candidates`	No	When found is false: the closest hotel names. Call again with one of them.
`factsTotal`	No
`nameSource`	No
`formerNames`	No
`recognition`	No	Hotel class and recognized awards (AAA, Forbes Travel Guide, MICHELIN Keys), each with its source.
`distanceNote`	No
`unknownTotal`	No
`contactSource`	No
`distanceSource`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add deeper semantics — and it does: facts carry a source URL and checked date, the Journeyed Score is accompanied by what backs it, and critically the "unknown" list means not-on-record, not that the hotel lacks the amenity. That distinction materially changes how an agent reports results.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the fact inventory, the usage rule and the exclusions. The long parenthetical fact list is dense but each item maps to a real query an agent might field; only minor tightening is possible.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be re-explained, and the description instead covers the things structured fields cannot: what domains of fact are in scope, what is deliberately absent, and how to interpret the unknown bucket. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents accepted forms (current/former name or journeyed.org URL) and gives examples. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so it sits at the baseline for a fully-documented single parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource — the fact sheet Journeyed holds for one Los Angeles hotel — and enumerates the exact fact categories covered (parking price, fees, pet rules, check-in/out, scores, distances). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like search_hotels, best_hotels and hotels_near, which operate on sets rather than one named hotel.

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?

"Use it for any question about a named hotel" gives a clear positive trigger, and "It holds no reviews, room prices or availability" provides negative scope that steers the agent elsewhere. It does not name the specific sibling to use instead (e.g. get_report or search_hotels) for those excluded cases, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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

All Journeyed: Los Angeles hotel facts 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?