Guides you through GetYourGuide supplier screens and sign-in so you can list bookings and update availability; call it first before other GetYourGuide actions.
How to work in GetYourGuide (list bookings and update availability): its screens and the sign-in link. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | What you want done in GetYourGuide, in your words. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns screens and a sign-in link, which is useful context about output content, but it does not say whether the guide is static or dynamic, whether authentication is needed, or what calling it actually returns in structure.
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 compact and front-loads the tool's purpose before the imperative "Call this first." The phrase "its screens and the sign-in link" is slightly cryptic, but overall there is no wasted wording.
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 low-complexity guide tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and when to call it. It is still thin on what the guide actually returns or how an agent should use the returned screens and sign-in link, leaving some gaps for an onboarding tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so the task parameter is already fully documented as "What you want done in GetYourGuide, in your words." The description does not add any further meaning about the task parameter, so the baseline of 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 states that this is a guide for working in GetYourGuide, specifically covering list bookings and update availability, plus screens and a sign-in link. That is a clear, specific purpose and it is distinguishable from the sibling action tools like open, read, click, and type, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 phrase "Call this first" gives explicit sequencing guidance: use this guide before performing GetYourGuide actions. It does not state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the primary usage condition is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.