mcp-hilton

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific actions in the Hilton booking and account management workflow, such as search_hotels for finding hotels, get_rooms for viewing room options, and cancel_reservation for cancellations, with no overlapping or ambiguous functions. The descriptions explicitly differentiate tools like checkout (for completing bookings) and modify_reservation (for changes), ensuring agents can easily select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as search_hotels, get_reservation, and cancel_reservation, with no deviations in style or convention. All tools use snake_case and clear action-oriented verbs, making the naming predictable and easy to understand for agents.
Tool Count5/5
With 16 tools, the set is well-scoped for the Hilton booking and account management domain, covering essential operations from search and booking to account management and post-booking actions. Each tool serves a specific, necessary function without redundancy, fitting the typical range for such a server.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage of the Hilton domain, including search, booking, modification, cancellation, account management (login, status, honors), and post-booking features like digital keys and extras. There are no obvious gaps; agents can handle the full lifecycle from initial search to checkout and beyond without dead ends.
Average 3.7/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions both viewing and adding extras, implying read and write capabilities, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies bookings.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides helpful examples. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating viewing from adding functions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that modifies bookings (implied by 'add'), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it lacks crucial details like success/error responses, side effects, or how extras integrate with existing reservations. This is inadequate for safe agent use.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three required parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as how 'hotelId' relates to extras availability or date constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('View and add') and resources ('extras to a booking'), and lists examples of extras. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'modify_reservation' or 'select_room', which might also involve booking modifications.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing booking), exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'modify_reservation' that might handle similar functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information and instructions (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid confirmation number), or what the output includes (e.g., key status, activation steps). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. The second sentence adds useful context about Digital Key functionality without redundancy. Both sentences earn their place, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for key points).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involves reservation-specific data with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., key status, QR codes, instructions) or handle edge cases (e.g., reservations without digital key support). For a tool with no structured output and zero annotations, more detail is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'confirmationNumber' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for a Hilton reservation, which is already covered by the schema's description. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context (e.g., format examples or validation rules).
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get digital room key information and activation instructions for a Hilton reservation.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('digital room key information and activation instructions'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_reservation' or 'get_rooms' by focusing on digital key functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_hotel_details' might also provide access-related info).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a reservation or being logged in), exclusions (e.g., not for non-Hilton properties), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_reservation' (which might include key info). The context is implied (Hilton reservations) but lacks explicit usage rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions returns (hotel names, brands, etc.) but doesn't cover pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated).
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 front-load the purpose and returns with zero waste. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function and output.
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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and returns but lacks behavioral context (e.g., how results are structured, limitations) that would be helpful given the complexity of 7 parameters.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying location and dates are used, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool searches for Hilton hotels by location and dates, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'Hilton hotels'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_hotel_details' or 'get_rooms' by focusing on search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for finding hotels, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., login status), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_hotel_details' for specific hotel info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'initiates the booking flow,' implying a mutation or state change, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if parameters are invalid, or if it's reversible. For a tool that likely modifies booking state, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste: 'Select a specific room type to proceed to booking. Initiates the booking flow for the chosen room.' It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or what 'initiates the booking flow' entails (e.g., does it reserve the room?). For a tool that likely triggers a booking process, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., hotelId, roomId, dates, adults, rooms). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Select a specific room type to proceed to booking. Initiates the booking flow for the chosen room.' It specifies the verb ('select') and resource ('room type'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_rooms' (which retrieves room options) and 'checkout' (which completes booking). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'modify_reservation' or 'get_reservation', which are related but distinct actions.
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 context by mentioning 'proceed to booking' and 'initiates the booking flow,' suggesting this tool is used after room selection and before checkout. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify_reservation' or prerequisites such as needing prior hotel search results. No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is returned (amenities, description, etc.) but lacks behavioral details such as whether this requires authentication (e.g., from 'hilton_login'), rate limits, error handling, or if it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic output.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the key details retrieved. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes specific examples without redundancy. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope and content, making it highly concise and effective for its length.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output content well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, errors) and doesn't explain return values since there's no output schema. For a read-focused tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in operational details.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (hotelId, checkIn, checkOut) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain format nuances or usage beyond implying hotelId can be from search results. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Hilton hotel'), with specific examples of what information is included (amenities, description, photos, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_hotels' by focusing on a single hotel's details rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_rooms' or 'get_reservation', which might also retrieve hotel-related details, so it's not a perfect 5.
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 when detailed hotel info is needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_hotels' (for finding hotels) or 'get_rooms' (for room-specific details). It mentions 'hotel code or full URL from search_hotels results', which provides some context but lacks clear when-not or alternative guidance. This is typical implied usage without strong exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication needs ('Requires being logged in'), which is useful. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like read-only vs. mutative nature, error handling, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and efficient.
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?
Given 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers authentication needs but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral context. For a simple lookup tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in transparency.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'confirmationNumber' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('Look up') and resource ('a specific Hilton reservation'), specifying it's by confirmation number. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_stay_history' (multiple reservations) or 'search_hotels' (hotel search), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.
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 context by stating 'Requires being logged in', which is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_stay_history' for past reservations or 'modify_reservation' for changes. The guidance is implied but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral requirements (requires login, sufficient points) and output information (shows points required and cash value). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, pagination, or what happens if insufficient points exist - leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second adds critical prerequisites. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for even better front-loading.
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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and prerequisites well, but doesn't describe the return format, error handling, or how results are presented. Given the complexity of a hotel search with points redemption, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without providing additional parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool searches for hotels available for points redemption and shows points/cash values, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_hotels' tool, which appears to be a similar search function but presumably without the points redemption focus.
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 provides some usage context by stating it requires being logged in with sufficient points, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the 'search_hotels' sibling tool or other alternatives, leaving the distinction implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the authentication requirement ('Requires being logged in'), which is valuable context not captured elsewhere. However, it doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the user isn't logged in. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured - just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality first, followed by the authentication requirement.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving historical data with authentication), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers the what and the authentication requirement but doesn't address return format, pagination, error handling, or how results are ordered. For a tool that retrieves potentially sensitive historical data, more context would be helpful.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'maxResults' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters or add any semantic context beyond what the schema provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'View past Hilton stays' with specific details about what information is included (hotel names, dates, points earned, total nights). It uses a specific verb ('View') and identifies the resource ('past Hilton stays'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_reservation' or 'get_honors_status'.
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 provides some usage context by stating 'Requires being logged in,' which is helpful guidance about prerequisites. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_reservation' (for current/future stays) or 'get_honors_status' (for account status rather than stay history). The usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read operation ('View') and details the return data, which is helpful. However, it lacks information on potential side effects (e.g., if it caches data), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists the return data. Every part adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and return data, which is adequate for a read-only tool. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or data freshness, and without an output schema, the return format is only partially described (e.g., no mention of structure or pagination), leaving some gaps in completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'adults' and 'rooms' affect results) or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.
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 specific action ('View available room types and rates'), the target resource ('for a specific hotel and date range'), and the return data ('room names, bed types, prices, points rates, and cancellation policies'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_hotels' (which finds hotels) and 'select_room' (which presumably books a room).
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 context by specifying 'for a specific hotel and date range,' suggesting it should be used after identifying a hotel. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_hotel_details' (which might provide general hotel info) or 'select_room' (which likely involves booking), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement ('Requires being logged in'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral context for a tool that fetches sensitive account data.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the complexity (fetching membership data) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the what and a key prerequisite, but does not explain the return values or potential errors, which are important for a tool handling user account information without structured output documentation.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools, but does not add extra semantic value beyond the schema.
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 specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Hilton Honors membership status'), listing exactly what information is retrieved: points balance, tier level, lifetime points, and progress toward next tier. It distinguishes from siblings like 'hilton_status' (likely general account status) and 'get_stay_history' (historical stays).
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?
The description explicitly states 'Requires being logged in,' providing clear context for when to use (after authentication). However, it does not specify when not to use or name alternatives among siblings, such as how this differs from 'hilton_status' or 'get_reservation' for other account details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions checking 'login status and session info,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, or what specific session details are returned. It adds some context (authentication verification) but lacks depth on operational behavior.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding value—no wasted words or redundancy. It's efficiently structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be improved. It explains the purpose and usage well, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't detail what 'session info' includes or potential errors. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline for zero parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
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 specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Hilton Honors login status and session info'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'hilton_login' (authentication) and 'get_honors_status' (likely broader status). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to verify authentication before performing other actions.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'hilton_login' (for initial login) or 'get_honors_status' (which might not focus on session verification).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the destructive nature ('cannot be undone'), confirmation requirement, and warning behavior for confirm=false. It doesn't mention error conditions or response format, but covers the critical safety aspects well.
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?
The description is perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical safety information. Every sentence earns its place - the first states what the tool does, the second provides essential usage guidance, and the third warns about irreversible consequences. Zero 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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the critical aspects: purpose, safety requirements, and irreversible nature. It could mention what happens on success/failure or return values, but given the context, it's quite complete for agent decision-making.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the confirm parameter's safety requirement but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('Cancel') and resource ('an existing Hilton reservation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like modify_reservation or checkout. It provides unambiguous purpose without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Set confirm=true only when you have explicit user confirmation') and provides a strong warning about irreversible consequences ('This action cannot be undone'), giving clear guidance for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's dual behavior (completing vs. checking state) and the critical requirement for user confirmation before finalizing. However, it lacks details on error conditions, response format, or side effects like payment processing.
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?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and critical usage warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.
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 the tool's complexity (conditional completion behavior) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well by explaining the dual functionality and confirmation requirement. However, it doesn't describe what 'current booking state' includes or potential error scenarios, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool with significant consequences.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it does emphasize the critical importance of the 'confirm' parameter's usage context, which provides some value beyond the schema's technical description.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('complete') and resource ('booking reservation'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'modify_reservation' or 'cancel_reservation'. It explicitly defines the action of finalizing a booking, which is distinct from other reservation-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: set confirm=true only with explicit user confirmation to complete the booking, and use confirm=false or omitted to check the current state. This clearly differentiates it from alternatives like 'modify_reservation' or 'get_reservation' by specifying the conditional behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a URL and instructions for manual login, implying it's non-destructive and requires user interaction. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral context.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by immediate outcomes and next steps, all in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.
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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is largely complete for its purpose—it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to proceed. However, it could improve by mentioning potential errors or prerequisites, slightly reducing completeness.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to compensate unnecessarily.
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 specific action ('Initiate Hilton Honors login flow') and resource ('Hilton Honors'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'hilton_status' (verification) and 'hilton_logout' (termination). It explicitly mentions returning a URL and instructions for manual completion, which clarifies the tool's unique function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to start login) and what to do afterward ('use hilton_status to verify'), including a clear alternative action post-login. It distinguishes usage from siblings by focusing on initiation rather than status checking or logout.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('clear saved Hilton session and cookies') and purpose ('log out or reset authentication state'), but doesn't specify side effects like whether this invalidates all active sessions, requires re-authentication for subsequent operations, or affects other tools' functionality. It provides basic context but lacks detailed behavioral traits.
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?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words.
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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral details about the logout/reset process. For a no-parameter authentication tool, it provides adequate context.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage context.
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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('clear saved Hilton session and cookies') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'hilton_login' and 'hilton_status'. It explicitly identifies the resource being acted upon (Hilton authentication state).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines with 'Use this to log out or reset authentication state', clearly indicating when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hilton_login' for logging in or 'hilton_status' for checking session state. It establishes clear context for authentication management.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it modifies existing reservations, has a preview mode (when confirm=false/omitted), and requires user confirmation for actual changes. However, it doesn't mention potential constraints like rate limits, cancellation policies, or authentication needs.
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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second provides critical usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by adding essential information not obvious from the tool name or schema alone.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it clarifies the tool's purpose, distinguishes it from siblings, and provides crucial behavioral guidance. However, it lacks details on error conditions, response format, or side effects (e.g., cost changes).
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies parameters are optional ('dates, room type, etc.') and emphasizes the 'confirm' parameter's importance, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.
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 ('Change') and resource ('existing Hilton reservation') with specific examples of what can be modified ('dates, room type, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_reservation' (which terminates) and 'get_reservation' (which only reads).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'Set confirm=true only when you have explicit user confirmation.' This directly addresses when to use (with confirmation) and when not to (without it), helping the agent choose between preview and actual modification modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-hilton MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-hilton/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-hilton)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-hilton MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-hilton/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-hilton)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-hilton'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server