Fetches reviews for a Point of Interest (POI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Optional language code (e.g. 'en_US'). | |
| currency | No | Optional currency code (e.g. 'USD'). | |
| detailId | Yes | The unique ID of the POI. | |
| pageToken | No | Optional token for pagination (to fetch next page of reviews). | |
| contentType | No | The type of the POI. | hotel |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'Fetches reviews' and does not mention pagination (despite a pageToken parameter), potential rate limits, ordering, required permissions, or response format. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence: 'Fetches reviews for a Point of Interest (POI).' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero wasted words, making it extremely concise and easy to parse.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, well-documented schema) and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any details about what the response looks like, pagination behavior, or result limits, which would be valuable for an agent invoking the tool without an output schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Fetches') and the resource ('reviews for a Point of Interest (POI)'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_media_gallery or get_poi_amenities. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_details or get_poi_full_about. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.
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.