get_collectionRead one published collection by slug, including its experience ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Collection slug. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| filters | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| destinationId | Yes | Approved destination id from list_destinations. | |
| experienceIds | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: only published collections are returned, and the result includes experience ids. No contradiction exists.
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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key identifier and return content. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with full annotations, a 100% documented schema, and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, how it is invoked, and what the response includes. No essential information is missing.
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% and the parameter is already documented as 'Collection slug.' The description's mention of 'by slug' reinforces this but does not add meaningful new semantics. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb (Read), a specific resource (one published collection), the required identifier (slug), and a key aspect of the returned data (experience ids). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_collections (plural) and get_experience (different resource).
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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a collection slug and need a single published collection's details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using list_collections for multiple collections or noting that unpublished collections are not accessible, so it stops short of a full 5.
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.