Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Podyx MCP

Podyx MCP

by Studio-Red-Barcelona
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

podyx_get_published_tour

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a published studio tour or home tour by optional slug to review required questions, guest policy, and consent metadata before checkout or preview.

Instructions

Read the currently published tour, required questions, guest policy and consent metadata GET /api/v2/studio-tours/published. Studio-owned native checkout. Current key/account/public_api authority and tenant ownership apply on reads, writes and receipt replay. A permitted replacement studio key may recover a known checkout. Accepted obligations remain recoverable when headless new entry is disabled. Instructions are browser capabilities, never proof of settlement. Confirmation verifies the native provider. An uncertain provider outcome retains its frozen request identity; do not create another tender. Token payloads are never in receipts or job arguments. Read/preview only. Follow all pagination; a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "podyx_get_published_tour"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note ('Follow all pagination') and the scope caveat that a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price. The remaining bulk — studio key recovery, tender identity, receipt and job-argument token rules — describes checkout/payment operations, not this read endpoint, so it adds volume without adding reliable behavioral context for this tool.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded correctly, but the body drifts into at least six sentences of settlement, tender, receipt and key-recovery rules unrelated to reading a published tour. These lines are not just wasted space — they invite an agent to misread this endpoint as part of a checkout flow.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-optional-param GET with no output schema, the description does enumerate the payload sections returned (tour, required questions, guest policy, consent metadata) and warns about pagination, which is the minimum an agent needs. It omits the response shape details and any field-level guidance, and the off-topic checkout boilerplate dilutes rather than completes the picture.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single optional nested parameter, query.slug, and the schema itself explains it ('Published slug; omit for a published home tour'). The description adds no further slug semantics, defaults, or format guidance, so the schema is doing all the work and a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource set ('Read the currently published tour, required questions, guest policy and consent metadata') and anchors it to the endpoint GET /api/v2/studio-tours/published, so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the nearby read-style siblings such as podyx_get_tour_availability or podyx_quote_tour, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to choose this over podyx_get_tour_availability or podyx_quote_tour, nor any prerequisites or when-not guidance. 'Read/preview only' restates the read-only nature rather than routing the agent, so the usage decision is left entirely to the caller.

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