Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

hotels_reviews

Fetch Hotels.com property guest reviews to assess overall ratings, category sub-ratings, and highlighted verified guest feedback using property_id, check-in, and check-out.

Instructions

Get Hotels.com guest reviews. Returns one Hotels.com property's review overview: the overall rating (0-10) with its descriptive label, the per-category sub-ratings (cleanliness, service, amenities, and so on), and a bounded set of highlighted guest reviews with reviewer, date, rating label, text, and verified-stay flag. property_id is the numeric global property id from a Search response's properties[].id. This mirrors the property page's Guest reviews section; the full paginated review archive is not exposed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesReviews request

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / request / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "adults": {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "check_in": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "check_out": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "currency": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "locale": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "property_id": {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / request / required
      Added value: +[
+  "check_in",
+  "check_out",
+  "property_id"
+]
  2. Addedv1.16.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return scope, the bounded nature of the review set, the data source (mirrors property page's Guest reviews section), and the key limitation that the paginated archive is not exposed. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Get' and 'Returns.'

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose and return content first, then parameter provenance, then a scope limitation that guides expectations. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what is returned, how property_id is obtained, and what is intentionally not included. Minor gaps remain around the semantics of check_in/check_out and optional parameters, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is high, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful value by explaining that property_id is the numeric global property id from Search response's properties[].id. It does not add detail for check_in, check_out, locale, or currency, but these are reasonably inferable from types and request context.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Hotels.com guest reviews.' It then enumerates exactly what is returned (overall rating with label, per-category sub-ratings, bounded highlighted reviews with reviewer/date/text/verified flag), and distinguishes itself from the archive by stating the full paginated review archive is not exposed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes clear this returns the review overview rather than the full archive, giving an implicit when-to-use boundary. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling hotels_reviews_archive as the alternative for paginated reviews, so the routing guidance relies on inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools