Skip to main content
Glama

MetaSearch MCP

by tr.com.metasearch
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate Meta catalog readiness

validate_meta_catalog
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a hotel or travel catalog for Meta mapping and catalog readiness. This is not official Meta certification.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's one addition is the disclaimer that results are not official Meta certification, which is genuinely useful framing about what the output means, but it says nothing about auth needs, limits, or what the check actually inspects.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the qualification appended. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to cover scope and routing. It covers scope adequately but leaves the agent without any signal on what checks run or how this differs from its eleven sibling validators, 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%: both 'format' and 'content' are fully documented in the schema, including the auto-detection enum and the 2 MB limit. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: checking a hotel/travel catalog for 'Meta mapping and catalog readiness'. The Meta focus implicitly distinguishes it from the Criteo, Google, Trivago, Wego and generic validate_feed siblings, though it never names one to route an agent explicitly.

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: you call this when you want to know whether a catalog is ready for Meta. There is no stated condition for choosing it over validate_feed or the other platform validators, and no prerequisites. The 'not official Meta certification' caveat is a useful scoping note but not usage guidance.

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