Search Expedia things to do for a destination and date range, returning normalized activity and tour results for trip planning.
Search Expedia activities. Returns normalized Expedia Things To Do (activities/tours) search results for a free-text destination and date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| option | Yes | Activity search payload |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / option / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "currency": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "destination": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "end_date": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "locale": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "page": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "page_size": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "start_date": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Input schema / properties / option / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "destination",
+ "end_date",
+ "start_date"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'returns normalized' results, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size, date format expectations, rate limits, or whether results are truncated. For a search tool this is a notable gap.
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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying detail about normalized activities/tours and the free-text destination/date range earns its place.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description does not fully prepare an agent to call this tool correctly. It omits the required nested option structure (though the schema covers it), date format, pagination semantics, and what the normalized results contain. An agent would need to guess at critical call details.
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?
The top-level schema only describes 'option' as 'Activity search payload', which is unhelpful. The description adds real meaning by clarifying that destination is free-text and that start_date and end_date form a date range, helping the agent understand the nested required fields. However, it does not specify date formats or the meaning of page/page_size/locale/currency.
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 and resource: 'Search Expedia activities' and clarifies the domain as 'Expedia Things To Do (activities/tours)'. This distinguishes it from sibling Expedia tools like expedia_flights_search and expedia_locations_search without needing to inspect them.
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?
Clearly indicates when to use the tool: for a free-text destination and date range, which implies it is for activity/tour searching rather than location lookup or property search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.