get_bookingLook up a Hotelbeds booking by reference and return its current status.
Retrieve a booking by reference, including its current status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | Hotelbeds booking reference, e.g. '1-8278844'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' correctly signals a non-mutating read and 'including its current status' hints at what is returned, but nothing is said about authorization, behavior for unknown or expired references, or error handling.
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?
One sentence, zero waste, with the operation and lookup key front-loaded. Nothing needs to be trimmed and nothing is buried.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema this is only marginally sufficient. Since no output schema exists, the description should describe what the returned booking looks like beyond a bare mention of 'current status', leaving a gap an agent cannot fill from structured fields.
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%: the single 'reference' parameter is already documented in the schema with an example format ('1-8278844'). The description names the parameter's role but adds no syntax or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Retrieve), resource (booking), and lookup key (by reference), plus the salient payload element (current status). It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as cancel_booking, create_booking, or get_cancellation_quote, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus cancel_booking, get_cancellation_quote, or create_booking. 'By reference' implies it operates on an existing booking, but no prerequisites, alternates, or when-not conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.