Google Hotels MCP

search_hotels

Find hotels in a destination for specific check-in and check-out dates, returning names, ratings, prices, amenities, and optional rates from booking sites as JSON.

Instructions

Search Google Hotels for a destination between two dates.

Returns a JSON array of hotels with name, rating, review count, price per night, total price, hotel class, address, coordinates, amenities, hero photo and the Google /travel/hotels/entity URL. When include_provider_prices is true each hotel also gets a providers list with the rate every booking site (Booking.com, Expedia, Agoda, Vrbo, Hotels.com, ...) is charging for the stay (one extra Apify provider-prices call per hotel, billed per-hotel).

Args: query: destination, e.g. "hotels in Paris" or "Hilton near Louvre". check_in: ISO date YYYY-MM-DD. check_out: ISO date YYYY-MM-DD. adults: number of adults. children: number of children. rooms: number of rooms. currency: ISO 4217 code (USD, EUR, GBP, ...). hl: Google interface language (en, fr, de, ...). gl: Google country code (us, gb, fr, ...). max_results: upper bound on hotels returned. min_rating: filter to hotels at or above this guest rating (0-5). min_hotel_class: filter to hotels at or above this class (2-5). include_provider_prices: fetch per-provider rates. Each hotel priced this way adds one provider-prices call to the Apify bill. Defaults to false to keep costs predictable.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`gl`	No	us
`hl`	No	en
`query`	Yes
`rooms`	No
`adults`	No
`check_in`	Yes
`children`	No
`currency`	No	USD
`check_out`	Yes
`min_rating`	No
`max_results`	No
`min_hotel_class`	No
`include_provider_prices`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the return payload shape, and critically that include_provider_prices triggers one extra billed Apify provider-prices call per hotel, defaulting to false for cost predictability. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return contents, then a clearly delimited Args block. The Args list is long but each entry earns its place because the underlying schema has no descriptions. Slight redundancy between the prose about provider prices and the include_provider_prices entry is the only waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 13-parameter, no-annotation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, filtering semantics, return shape, and the cost trade-off of the expensive optional flag. The main remaining gap is guidance on choosing this tool versus its two siblings.

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

Parameters5/5

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 fully, and it does: all 13 parameters are documented with concrete formats (ISO 'YYYY-MM-DD' dates, ISO 4217 currency codes, Google hl/gl language and country codes) and the semantics of the two filter params (min_rating 0-5, min_hotel_class 2-5) plus the cost implication of include_provider_prices.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search Google Hotels for a destination between two dates'), which immediately distinguishes it from search_vacation_rentals and hotel_price_calendar by domain. It does not explicitly name or contrast the siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the request shape (destination + date range) and there is a conditional note about when to set include_provider_prices. However, nothing tells the agent when to prefer this tool over hotel_price_calendar or search_vacation_rentals, and no exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server