Get all available booking windows in a specific month that meet the minimum length of stay requirement. Returns all possible check-in dates and their corresponding available periods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | Year (e.g., 2026) | |
| month | Yes | Month number (1-12, where 1=January, 12=December) | |
| stayId | Yes | The unique identifier of the stay | |
| minLengthOfStay | Yes | Minimum length of stay in days required |
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds value by explaining the filtering behavior ('meet the minimum length of stay requirement') and the output shape ('Returns all possible check-in dates and their corresponding available periods'). This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover edge cases like response limits or date ranges.
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 two sentences, both informative and free of fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and includes a brief output explanation. Every word earns its place, 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 read-only query tool with a simple schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and output format clearly. However, it could briefly mention that results are tied to a specific stayId (though schema implies this) or clarify how 'available' is determined, which would make it fully complete.
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%, with all four parameters (year, month, stayId, minLengthOfStay) already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the minLengthOfStay concept without adding new semantic meaning. It earns the baseline score for high schema coverage but doesn't elevate it further.
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 tool's function: 'Get all available booking windows in a specific month that meet the minimum length of stay requirement.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('available booking windows'), and specifies key constraints ('specific month', 'minimum length of stay'). The added detail about returning 'check-in dates and their corresponding available periods' further clarifies the output, distinguishing it from other availability tools.
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 implies usage context (monthly availability with length-of-stay filter) but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like checkStayAvailability or findNearestAvailability. There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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.
