Retrieve details for a GetYourGuide location—city, POI, or region—by its numeric ID. Get the essential information needed to reference a place in travel workflows.
Get details for a GetYourGuide location (city, POI, or region) by its numeric ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Content language (e.g. en, de). Defaults to GYG_LANGUAGE when set. | |
| locationId | Yes | Numeric location ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.1.4v1.1.3v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the operation is read-only, and the description aligns with that by saying 'Get details'. The description adds useful context about location types and the use of a numeric ID, but does not disclose return shape, possible errors, or scope limitations beyond that, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
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?
A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase earns its place: it specifies the object types and the lookup mechanism without redundancy.
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?
For a simple get-by-id tool with a readOnlyHint and a fully described schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could theoretically mention the output shape, but with no output schema and a straightforward resource, the current text gives enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%, so the schema fully documents locationId and language. The description reinforces that locationId is numeric, matching the schema's integer type, but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get details'), the resource (GetYourGuide location), and the scope (city, POI, or region) with the identifying mechanism (numeric ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gyg_list_location_tours, which focus on listing rather than fetching a single location.
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 when you have a numeric location ID and need details, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as gyg_list_location_tours or gyg_get_tour. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving some inference needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.