MCP Booking

booking_check_availability

Verify room availability for a property by providing URL and check-in/check-out dates. Returns available room types and options.

Instructions

Check room availability for a specific property and date range. Returns available room types and options.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "propertyUrl": "<propertyUrl>",
      "checkIn": "<checkIn>",
      "checkOut": "<checkOut>"
    },
    "name": "booking_check_availability"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rooms`	No	Number of rooms (default: 1)
`adults`	No	Number of adults (default: 2)
`checkIn`	Yes	Check-in date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`checkOut`	Yes	Check-out date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`propertyUrl`	Yes	Full property URL or propertyId from search results

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations present, so description bears full burden. It states the tool returns available room types and options but does not disclose whether it is read-only, effects on system, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource, then outcome.

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?

Given moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and outcome. Minor omissions: lacks detail on response format or prerequisites like having propertyId from search.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reiterates 'specific property and date range' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, e.g., clarifying propertyUrl can be URL or ID.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'check', the resource 'room availability', and the scope 'for a specific property and date range'. It distinguishes from siblings like booking_book (booking) and booking_get_prices (pricing) by focusing on availability.

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?

The description implies usage for checking availability before booking but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like booking_get_prices or booking_book. No exclusions or conditions mentioned.

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

Deploy Server