Podyx MCP

podyx_get_room

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a catalog room by UUID to inspect its normalized details, configured prices, links, and lifecycle status. Use read-only previews to check room data before booking or authoring changes.

Instructions

Get catalog rooms GET /api/v2/rooms/{id}. Catalog owns JSON normalization, versioning, links, configured prices and lifecycle. Authoring includes drafts; view=offers reuses customer buyability. Configured prices are independently paginated with prices_page/prices_per_page and refer to current service versions. Amounts are configured catalog rates, not a dated customer quote. Omitted links/override sections preserve; [] clears the submitted collection. Archive deactivates; restore reactivates and enforces existing room allowances. Mutations require a UUID Idempotency-Key and current primary/linked-resource authority, including receipt replay. Read/preview only. Follow all pagination; a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "podyx_get_room"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`query`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral context beyond that: configured prices are independently paginated, amounts are current catalog rates rather than a dated customer quote, pagination must be followed, and a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price. Those are genuinely useful for a read tool, though they sit amid irrelevant mutation boilerplate (Idempotency-Key, archive/restore) that muddies rather than clarifies.

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 description is a single dense run-on paragraph mixing endpoint behavior, catalog versioning, mutation idempotency, archive/restore semantics and quote disclaimers. Only the first clause is front-loaded with the actual purpose; the rest is unsorted boilerplate that an agent must sift to find the two sentences that matter. Substantial pruning would improve it without losing callable information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a two-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description is simultaneously over-long and incomplete: it never says what a room record contains or what the configured-price list looks like, and it omits any differentiation from the list/get siblings. It also spends most of its length on mutation requirements (Idempotency-Key, archive/restore, authority) that cannot apply to a GET. The result is verbose but not complete for the task the agent must perform.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does: prices_page/prices_per_page are described as an independent pagination axis over configured prices tied to current service versions. The required path.id is only implied by the URL template, with no explanation of what kind of room identifier is expected. Worse, it advertises a 'view=offers' option that the schema would reject under additionalProperties=false, which can misdirect an agent.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The opening clause 'Get catalog rooms GET /api/v2/rooms/{id}' gives a clear verb and resource, so the basic purpose is recoverable. However, the remainder of the paragraph drifts into catalog lifecycle rules, authoring/draft scoping and view=offers behavior, none of which distinguishes this tool from siblings like podyx_list_room or podyx_v1_list_rooms in a usable way. The core intent is identified but quickly buried.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus podyx_list_room, podyx_get_service or podyx_get_setup. The fragments 'Authoring includes drafts; view=offers reuses customer buyability' read as usage hints, but they reference a 'view' parameter that does not exist in the schema, so they cannot actually guide a call. The closing 'Read/preview only' is the only actionable constraint.

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

Deploy Server