Retrieves details for a specific Point of Interest (POI) such as a hotel, restaurant, or attraction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Optional language code (e.g. 'en_US'). | |
| currency | No | Optional currency code (e.g. 'USD'). | |
| contentId | Yes | The unique ID of the POI. | |
| contentType | Yes | The type of the POI. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior ('retrieves') but does not describe the output structure, pagination, authentication, or rate limits. It also fails to define what 'details' entails, which could mislead users expecting specific data.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to scan.
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?
With no output schema and multiple sibling tools covering specific aspects (media, amenities, about, reviews), the description leaves the exact scope of 'details' ambiguous. It lacks information about what is actually returned, making it incomplete for a general-purpose retrieval tool.
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?
The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter semantics. It does echo the contentType enum values, but those are already in the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves details for a POI, enumerating content types (hotel, restaurant, attraction) that match the contentType enum. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 'get_poi_full_about' which likely overlaps in scope.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_poi_full_about, get_poi_amenities, or get_poi_reviews. The description lacks any mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
While most tools have clear specific purposes, 'get_details' overlaps with 'get_poi_full_about' and could be confused with the more specific getters like 'get_poi_amenities' or 'get_poi_reviews'. The distinction between a generic details endpoint and a detailed metadata profile is not immediately obvious.
The naming convention is mixed: most tools use a 'get_' prefix (get_details, get_media_gallery, get_poi_*), but 'search_listings', 'typeahead', and 'usage_statistic' break that pattern. The verbs are also inconsistent (get vs search vs typeahead), making the set feel less predictable.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a travel and POI information service. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the overall workflow of searching, retrieving details, and viewing ancillary data like media, amenities, and reviews. No tools feel redundant or excessive.
The toolset covers the core needs for exploring Points of Interest: search/typeahead, detailed information, media, amenities, reviews, and API usage stats. A minor gap is the lack of a direct 'get_poi_by_id' function, but 'get_details' likely covers that. The available tools form a coherent workflow without major dead ends.