HemmaBo

Get Verified Stay Offer

vrp_get_verified_stay_offer

Read-only

Fetch and verify an Ed25519-signed VRP stay offer for exact dates and guests before quoting final price or sending guests to the signed host booking URL.

Instructions

Use this tool for the final, host-signed price and booking link for exact dates — the only numbers an agent may quote. For a bare availability yes/no on a propertyId, hemmabo_check_availability is lighter and sufficient. Fetch, verify, and render a live host-domain signed VRP stay offer for exact dates and guest count. Verifies Ed25519 JWS against domain JWKS. Call after hemmabo_search_properties returns a host domain, or after vrp_verify_node confirms a domain from outside search, always before quoting final price or a booking link. Read-only: must not lock a quote, create a booking or collect guest details. Route booking only to the signed direct_booking_url. The parameters work as a set: pass the same domain, checkIn, checkOut and guests the guest used at search; checkIn must be strictly before checkOut, and the resulting night count — not the dates themselves — drives the signed price and the host capacity check, so changing either date re-prices the offer. Always pass language as the guest's actual conversation language so the rendered widget matches the guest; it never affects the signed price or availability, only formatting. Booking and payment happen only on the host's own domain, at the signed direct_booking_url. The agent never books, pays, cancels or changes a booking.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Host-owned domain without protocol or path (e.g. 'villaakerlyckan.se', 'myvilla.it'). Invalid: 'https://...', paths, ports, or booking URLs.
`guests`	Yes	Total guest count as positive integer (e.g. 2, 4). Used by the host node for capacity validation and guest-tier pricing on the signed offer.
`checkIn`	Yes	Requested arrival date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. '2026-11-14'). Must be strictly before checkOut. Use the same dates the guest requested in search.
`checkOut`	Yes	Requested departure date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. '2026-11-17'). Must be strictly after checkIn. Guest does not stay the departure night.
`language`	No	The guest's conversation language, as a BCP-47 tag (e.g. 'en', 'sv', 'de', 'sv-SE') — ALWAYS pass this, matching the language the guest is chatting in, so the rendered widget's labels, dates and currency formatting match the guest instead of falling back to the rendering client's own locale (which can silently disagree with the conversation). Never changes the signed price value or availability — only how it is displayed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No
`fresh`	No	True when the signed offer is still within its validity/freshness window.
`domain`	Yes	Echoed host domain that issued the signed offer.
`guests`	No	Echoed requested guest count.
`checkIn`	No	Echoed requested arrival date.
`checkOut`	No	Echoed requested departure date.
`verified`	Yes	True only when the host-domain offer signature and payload checks pass.
`signature`	No	Ed25519/JWS verification details, including key id and verification status.
`widget_media`	No	Images and media hydrated from the verified host discovery document for the ChatGPT widget.
`agent_citation`	No	Citation permission and safe-to-quote status derived from the signed offer.
`agent_guardrails`	No	Rules the agent must follow when presenting or acting on this offer.
`payload_matches_offer`	No	True when the signed payload matches the structured offer returned to the agent.
`official_offer_summary`	No	Small signed-offer summary for agents to quote without inventing a price, a lower price, savings, availability, comparisons, or booking details.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv7.0.5Oct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the verification mechanism (Ed25519 JWS against domain JWKS), hard behavioral constraints (must not lock a quote, create a booking or collect guest details), the routing rule (booking only to the signed direct_booking_url), and where booking/payment actually occur. This is substantial context the annotations alone do not convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The critical constraints are front-loaded and each sentence carries instruction. It is somewhat long and repeats the booking-on-host-domain idea across two sentences, but no sentence is pure filler, so it stays efficient for a tool with this much behavior to convey.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. Given the 5-parameter schema, an open-world read tool, and the multi-step workflow, the description covers prerequisites, parameter coupling, date validation, pricing behavior, and downstream booking routing — enough for 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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds relational semantics beyond the schema: 'the parameters work as a set' with matching domain/dates/guests from search, and the key insight that night count — not the dates themselves — drives signed price and capacity checks, meaning changing either date re-prices. It also explains language's non-effect on price. This genuinely extends the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — fetch, verify and render a live host-domain signed VRP stay offer for exact dates and guest count — and explicitly contrasts itself with siblings ('For a bare availability yes/no on a propertyId, hemmabo_check_availability is lighter and sufficient'). An agent can tell it apart from hemmabo_search_properties and vrp_verify_node without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit ordering conditions: call after hemmabo_search_properties returns a host domain, or after vrp_verify_node confirms a domain from outside search, and always before quoting final price or a booking link. It also names the lighter alternative for the availability case, so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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

Deploy Server