@striderlabs/mcp-marriott

get_hotel_details

Retrieve detailed information for a Marriott hotel including description, amenities, policies, check-in/out times, parking, and pet policy.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific Marriott hotel — description, amenities, policies, check-in/out times, parking, and pet policy.

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": {
      "hotelIdOrUrl": "<hotelIdOrUrl>"
    },
    "name": "get_hotel_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hotelIdOrUrl`	Yes	Hotel property code (e.g., 'NYCMQ') or full URL from search_hotels results

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It lists returned information categories but omits critical behavioral details: whether authentication is required, rate limits, error handling, or that the tool is strictly read-only. The name suggests idempotence but this is 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key details. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return categories. However, it does not specify the output format (single object), reinforce that the ID should come from search_hotels, or mention error scenarios. Minor gaps but mostly sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, with a clear schema description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond that—it only reiterates that the parameter can be a code or URL. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves detailed hotel information and enumerates specific categories (description, amenities, policies, check-in/out times, parking, pet policy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_hotels (list) and get_room_options (room-specific).

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 after a search (since hotelIdOrUrl can be a URL from search_hotels), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites like being logged in. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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

Deploy Server