Pitchup.com MCP server

List extras

list_extras

Read-only

Retrieve available booking extras (dogs, cots, extra cars) with prices, pricing rules, maximum quantities, compulsory flags, and linked charge types. Optionally include dated variable prices.

Instructions

Extras that can be added to a booking (for example a dog, a cot or an extra car): price, pricing type, pricing period, maximum quantity, compulsory flag and linked charge types. Optionally also the dated prices of extras with variable pricing.

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": "list_extras"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`max_results`	No
`include_variable_prices`	No	Also list dated prices from GET /rest/api/extraprice/

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds domain specifics (extras = dog, cot, car; fields returned; variable pricing available on request), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite max_results existing.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its examples, then the field list, then the optional add-on. No filler; only the missing pagination note keeps it from a 5.

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 no-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers what an 'extra' is and what fields come back, but omits pagination behavior for max_results and any ordering or filtering semantics an agent would need to consume results correctly.

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?

include_variable_prices is documented in the schema itself (50% coverage). The description only paraphrases it ('Optionally also the dated prices of extras with variable pricing') without adding a format, default, or consequence. Baseline 3 given the schema covers half the parameters.

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?

Clear verb-implied resource ('list_extras' with a description that enumerates what an extra is and its fields). It reads as the canonical extras catalog, but nothing explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like list_charge_types or get_pricing, which the description references only obliquely via 'linked charge types'.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The optional variable-prices note implies a use case, but the description never tells the agent when to call list_extras versus get_pricing or list_charge_types.

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

Deploy Server