compare_experiencesCompare two to five experiences side by side with the same fields (price, duration, rating, cancellation, booking URL).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | No | Display currency for prices. | EUR |
| experienceIds | Yes | 2 to 5 experience ids. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| experiences | Yes |
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?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the output presents experiences side by side with consistent fields, which clarifies what the tool returns beyond the raw schema.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and immediately gives the key constraints and output fields. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
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 rich annotations, a fully described input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It conveys the essential comparison scope and fields without needing to duplicate structured data.
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 schema fully documents experienceIds and currency. The description reinforces the count and field scope but adds no new parameter-level detail such as formatting, defaults, or relationships beyond what the schema already states.
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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') with a clear resource (experiences), a precise count range (two to five), and enumerates the comparison fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_experience, which fetches a single experience, and search_experiences, which searches rather than compares.
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 intended use case is clear: side-by-side comparison of multiple experiences. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'two to five' constraint and field list give an agent enough context to select it appropriately over single-experience or search tools.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: search, detail, reviews, compare, booking link, collections, and destinations each target a different operation. The only mild overlap is between get_booking_link and get_experience since get_experience already includes a booking URL, but the descriptions clarify the checkout-specific purpose.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_destinations, get_experience, search_experiences, create_share_list. The one deviation is nearest_destination, which uses an adjective_noun form instead of a verb, but it is still readable and predictable.
Eleven tools is well within the ideal range and each tool contributes to a coherent workflow: discovery, details, comparison, sharing, and booking links. No tool feels redundant or excessive, and the set is appropriately scoped for an experience-booking affiliate server.
The core lifecycle is well covered: find destinations, search experiences, inspect details, read reviews, compare options, generate booking links, and create shared shortlists. Minor gaps exist around shortlist management—there is no way to read or delete a created share list beyond its expiry—but agents can still complete the main user journey without dead ends.