compare_platform_requirementsCompare documented or readiness-oriented field requirements across supported hotel and catalog platforms before designing a feed mapping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targets | No | Optional list of validation targets. Omit to use every supported target. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platforms | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / targets / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional list of validation targets. Omit to use every supported target."Input schema / properties / targets / items / descriptionAdded value: +"Validation target. Choose a published-contract validator, readiness checker or the generic hotel master data audit."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "platforms": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "formats": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "mode": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "officialDocs": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "requirements": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "field": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "formats": {
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "JSON",
+ "XML",
+ "CSV",
+ "TSV",
+ "NDJSON"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "level": {
+ "enum": [
+ "required",
+ "recommended",
+ "informational"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "note": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "field",
+ "label",
+ "level"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "target": {
+ "description": "Validation target. Choose a published-contract validator, readiness checker or the generic hotel master data audit.",
+ "enum": [
+ "wego",
+ "google_hotel_center",
+ "trivago",
+ "meta_catalog",
+ "criteo",
+ "hotel_master_data"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "target",
+ "title",
+ "description",
+ "formats",
+ "mode",
+ "requirements"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "platforms"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the framing that results are "documented or readiness-oriented" and does not disclose anything about output shape beyond that; with annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, scope and intended timing are all in one clause. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers the essentials. The residual gap is the ambiguity between "documented" and "readiness-oriented" results and how they relate to compare_feed_readiness, which an agent would have to resolve on its own.
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% and the schema already documents the targets enum and the omit-to-use-all behavior. The description's phrase "across supported hotel and catalog platforms" merely echoes what the enum lists, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (compare) and resource (field requirements across supported hotel and catalog platforms) plus the design phase it serves. It is clearly distinct from the validate_* siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the very similar compare_feed_readiness.
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?
"Before designing a feed mapping" implies the usage moment, but there is no explicit contrast with the near-identical compare_feed_readiness or with the per-platform validate_* tools. The agent must infer which comparison tool applies when.
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.