Retrieve Marriott reservations, optionally filtered by confirmation number.
Read upcoming Marriott reservations or filter by confirmation number.
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": "get_reservation"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirmationNumber | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads reservations, which implies non-destructive behavior, but does not mention return format (list vs. single), pagination, error handling, or any side effects. The description is minimal and does not adequately disclose behavior beyond the action itself.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and quickly mentions the optional filter. There is no unnecessary wording, and it is efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core action and parameter role, but it omits the exact return behavior (e.g., list vs. single reservation) and does not guide when to use this tool versus siblings. While adequate for a basic read, it leaves some gaps that an agent might need filled.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that confirmationNumber is used to filter results, which adds semantic meaning beyond the parameter name. However, it does not clarify the pattern constraints or the effect of omitting the parameter (e.g., returns all upcoming). The description provides basic role but lacks detail.
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 clearly states a specific action (read) and resource (upcoming Marriott reservations), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_stay_history by specifying 'upcoming'. This differentiates it without ambiguity.
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?
The description implies usage context (upcoming reservations) and mentions optional filtering, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_stay_history or other tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.