Delete (soft-delete) a room from a Stay. Requires an MCP agent token scoped to the owning account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roomId | Yes | The room's EntryID — use getMyStayRooms to find it | |
| stayId | Yes | The Stay's EntryID |
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?
The description discloses that the delete is a soft-delete, which is not implied by the annotations' destructiveHint=true (which could suggest a hard delete). It also mentions the token scope requirement, adding auth context beyond structured annotations. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey, though it doesn't describe reversibility or side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object. It includes a necessary auth caveat without adding fluff. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple two-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the key auth context. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. A minor omission is that it doesn't say what happens after deletion (e.g., return value), but this is non-critical for a soft-delete operation.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, including how to find the roomId via getMyStayRooms. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action (Delete) on a specific resource (a room from a Stay), and clarifies it is a soft-delete. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like deleteRoomPhoto, deleteStayPackage, and deleteStayPhoto. The verb+resource structure is 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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool (to soft-delete a room) and a prerequisite (MCP agent token scoped to the owning account). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is straightforward and the auth requirement is useful guidance.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
