Skip to main content
Glama

Nomad Stays

by io.github.nomadstays

bookStay

Create a real booking from a quoteId returned by quoteStayBooking, and return a hosted checkoutUrl. The quote's price/availability is re-validated server-side one more time before the booking is created — a stale or expired quote will be rejected with a message to call quoteStayBooking again. You MUST send the checkoutUrl to the member and tell them to open it in their own browser to pay — you cannot complete this payment on their behalf, and no card details ever pass through you. Requires NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN with the 'bookings' scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quoteIdYesThe quoteId returned by quoteStayBooking
contactNameNoGuest's full name for the booking. Defaults to the member's account name if omitted.
contactEmailNoContact email for the booking. Defaults to the member's account email if omitted.
contactPhoneNoContact phone number for the booking.
specialRequestNoAny special request to pass along to the Stay.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses server-side re-validation of price/availability, rejection of stale/expired quotes, the requirement to send the checkoutUrl to the member (and that the agent cannot pay on their behalf), and the token/scope requirement. These go well beyond the annotations (which only hint at non-readonly behavior). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose/output, re-validation behavior, agent action requirement, and auth requirement. No filler, front-loaded with the main purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return value (checkoutUrl), the workflow from quote, error handling for stale quotes, and the agent's role in payment. This is complete for a complex booking-creation tool.

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?

The schema already covers all 5 parameters with 100% description coverage, including the origin of quoteId and defaults for contactName/contactEmail. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 states 'Create a real booking from a quoteId returned by quoteStayBooking, and return a hosted checkoutUrl' — a specific verb, resource, and input. It clearly distinguishes bookStay from quoteStayBooking (quote vs booking) and from other booking-related tools like getBookingStatus and listMyBookings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description places the tool in the workflow after quoteStayBooking, states that a stale quote will be rejected and to call quoteStayBooking again, and instructs the agent to send the checkoutUrl to the member. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context and workflow are clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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

All Nomad Stays toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions differentiating the many getStaysBy* search variants and the four availability tools. However, the overlap between checkStayAvailability, getRoomAvailability, findNearestAvailability, and getAvailabilityByMonth could still cause confusion for an agent, though the descriptions largely mitigate this.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools mostly follow a verb-noun pattern with get*, update*, create*, and delete* dominating, but the mix of additional verbs (check, find, list, search, signup, book, quote, purchase, submit, save, reorder, upload) and inconsistent noun forms (Stay vs. Stays, MyStay vs. Stay) prevents a fully predictable naming scheme. CamelCase is consistent, but the verb variety is high.

Tool Count1/5

With 76 tools, this server far exceeds the well-scoped range and even the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. While the platform covers multiple domains, this many tools is overwhelming for an agent and would likely be better split into focused sub-servers.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface is broad, covering search, stay management, applications, bookings, products, and help center. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps: no cancel booking, no delete stay, no delete application, and no way to update or delete a booking. These missing operations create potential dead ends for common workflows.

Resources