Skip to main content
Glama

MetaSearch MCP

by tr.com.metasearch
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate hotel master data

validate_hotel_master_data
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a platform-independent hotel master-data quality audit.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoOptional input-format override. Omit or use auto to detect JSON, NDJSON, XML, CSV or TSV automatically.
contentYesFeed content. Paste the JSON, XML, CSV, TSV or NDJSON payload directly. Maximum size is 2 MB.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYes
formatYes
issuesYes
targetYesValidation target. Choose a published-contract validator, readiness checker or the generic hotel master data audit.
recordsYes
coverageYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"Feed content. Paste the JSON, XML, CSV, TSV or NDJSON payload directly."New value: +"Feed content. Paste the JSON, XML, CSV, TSV or NDJSON payload directly. Maximum size is 2 MB."
    • addedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Added value: +"Optional input-format override. Omit or use auto to detect JSON, NDJSON, XML, CSV or TSV automatically."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "coverage": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "missing": {
+            "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+            "minimum": 0,
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "present": {
+            "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+            "minimum": 0,
+            "type": "integer"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "present",
+          "missing"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "format": {
+      "enum": [
+        "JSON",
+        "XML",
+        "CSV",
+        "TSV",
+        "NDJSON"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "code": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "level": {
+            "enum": [
+              "error",
+              "warning",
+              "info"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "rows": {
+            "items": {
+              "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+              "minimum": 0,
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "level",
+          "code",
+          "message"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "records": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "maximum": 100,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "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"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "target",
+    "format",
+    "records",
+    "score",
+    "issues",
+    "coverage"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the platform-agnostic framing but discloses nothing else - no validation policy, no failure behavior, no statement of what 'audit' returns. With annotations carrying the load, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or restatement of the title. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With a full output schema, 100% schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description needn't explain inputs or return values. What it lacks is routing context in a crowded family of validators - it never says how it relates to the platform-specific validate_* tools or to normalize/suggest_feed_fixes, which is the main remaining gap.

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% and both parameters (content, format) are fully documented in-schema, including the 2 MB limit and the auto-detection enum. The description contributes no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb plus resource plus scope: a 'quality audit' of 'hotel master-data' that is 'platform-independent'. The 'platform-independent' qualifier implicitly separates it from the platform-specific siblings (validate_google_hotel_center_list, validate_wego_hotel_feed, etc.), but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'platform-independent' signals this is the generic validator to reach for when no platform-specific validator applies. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or hand-off guidance (e.g., to suggest_feed_fixes or to a platform-specific sibling), which matters given twelve closely related siblings.

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

All MetaSearch MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources