viajante

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Plan stay blocks

plan_stay_blocks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Groups consecutive nights with the same guests into stay blocks, returning check-in, check-out, headcount, and people so you can search one hotel stay per block.

Instructions

Local: group consecutive nights with the same people into blocks.

roster maps each night (YYYY-MM-DD, the night that starts that day) to the names sleeping. Nights must be consecutive. Each block gives check_in, check_out, nights, headcount and people, so one search_hotels stay per block can use headcount as adults. Never decides where anyone sleeps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`roster`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`empty_note`	Yes
`error_code`	Yes
`observed_at`	Yes
`retry_after`	Yes
`completeness`	Yes
`empty_reason`	Yes
`observed_at_basis`	Yes
`retry_after_seconds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.2Oct 19, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / roster / title
```
Removed value: -"Roster"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"plan_stay_blocksArguments"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "completeness": {
+      "enum": [
+        "complete",
+        "partial",
+        "blocked"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "empty_note": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "empty_reason": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "enum": [
+            "provider_empty",
+            "filtered_out",
+            "not_loaded"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "error_code": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "observed_at": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "observed_at_basis": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "enum": [
+            "provider",
+            "fetch"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "retry_after": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "retry_after_seconds": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "ok",
+        "no_results",
+        "rate_limited",
+        "blocked",
+        "timeout",
+        "failed"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "completeness",
+    "empty_reason",
+    "empty_note",
+    "error_code",
+    "retry_after",
+    "retry_after_seconds",
+    "observed_at",
+    "observed_at_basis"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv1.4.1Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/local safety. Description adds behavioral constraints: nights must be consecutive, roster key format (night-start date), output block fields, and 'Never decides where anyone sleeps' clarifies scope.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action, then necessary detail on input, output, and constraint. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a local, single-parameter planning tool with an output schema, the description supplies input format, output block fields, constraints, and scope boundary. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and there is 1 nested parameter. The description compensates by defining roster as a date→names mapping with YYYY-MM-DD night-start keys and consecutive-night requirement, though it doesn't specify every edge case (e.g., empty arrays).

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb 'group' and resource 'consecutive nights' with scope 'same people into blocks'. The 'Local:' prefix and downstream reference to search_hotels distinguish it from search siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context: use this to produce blocks so one search_hotels stay per block can use headcount as adults. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative planning tools, so not a full 5.

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