Fetch full Agoda activity details by activity_id from a prior search, including title, description, duration, categories, and images.
Get Agoda activity detail. Returns full activity detail from Agoda: title, description, stated duration, categories, and content images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes | Numeric Agoda activity id, from a prior activities search call's activity_id field |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read nature ('Get') and the returned field set, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for a missing/invalid activity_id.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return payload. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only the missing link to the search sibling keeps it from a 5.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single activity_id parameter, so the schema already documents its origin and format. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('Agoda activity detail') and enumerates the returned fields (title, description, duration, categories, images), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling agoda_activities_search, though the 'detail' naming implies a single-record lookup.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never mentions that it requires an activity_id obtained from agoda_activities_search, nor how it relates to the other agoda detail/search tools; that linkage only appears in the schema's parameter description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.