Fetch a TripAdvisor place profile by URL or location ID to view ratings, reviews, and details.
Get TripAdvisor place. Returns a rich TripAdvisor place profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | TripAdvisor location id fallback | |
| url | No | TripAdvisor place URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Returns a rich TripAdvisor place profile' is the only behavioral claim and it is unspecific — no mention of read-only nature, what fields the profile contains, error behavior for bad ids, or whether id and url are alternatives.
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 the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is close to restating the first ('Get place' vs 'Returns a place profile'), but the total length is minimal.
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, no output schema, and two optional parameters whose interplay is unexplained, the description is too thin for an agent to call this correctly without external inference. It should at least say what identifier to supply and what the profile contains.
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% (both id and url documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the relationship between the two optional parameters or which takes precedence, so it neither compensates nor detracts.
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?
The description names a verb and resource ('Get TripAdvisor place') and hints at a profile return, so the basic purpose is inferable. However, 'place' is vague against siblings like tripadvisor_hotels, tripadvisor_reviews, and tripadvisor_search, and nothing distinguishes which entity type this retrieves.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus tripadvisor_search, tripadvisor_autocomplete, or tripadvisor_hotels, nor any prerequisite about needing a prior lookup to obtain an id or url. The agent must guess the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.