Skip to main content
Glama

outdoorithm

by io.github.outdoorithm

Check Availability

check_availability
Read-only

Check real-time campground availability for specific dates.

Queries the camply-service to check live campsite availability against reservation systems. Supports 30+ providers including RecreationDotGov, ReserveCalifornia, state parks, and county parks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_dateYesCheck-out date in YYYY-MM-DD format
min_nightsNoMinimum consecutive nights required (1-7, default 1)
start_dateYesCheck-in date in YYYY-MM-DD format
campground_idYesCampground CUID (e.g., "ReserveCalifornia:uuid:725")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / campground_id / description
      Added value: +"Campground CUID (e.g., \"ReserveCalifornia:uuid:725\")"
    • addedInput schema / properties / end_date / description
      Added value: +"Check-out date in YYYY-MM-DD format"
    • addedInput schema / properties / min_nights / description
      Added value: +"Minimum consecutive nights required (1-7, default 1)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / start_date / description
      Added value: +"Check-in date in YYYY-MM-DD format"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that queries are real-time and against reservation systems via camply-service, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential latency, rate limits, or failure modes, so value beyond annotations is modest.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant information. It is well-structured and earns its brevity.

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

Completeness4/5

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 complete schema coverage and an output schema present, the description sufficiently conveys purpose and scope. It does not explain what happens when no availability exists, but the output schema likely covers that. Minor gaps like external service dependencies are mentioned, making it reasonably complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 4 parameters, with clear descriptions and formats. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it relies entirely on the schema, which is already sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool checks real-time campground availability for specific dates, with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('campground availability'). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like get_campground_details and search_campgrounds by focusing solely on availability checking.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool should be used when checking availability for specific dates, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It adds context about supporting 30+ providers, but this is informational rather than usage guidance.

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

All outdoorithm 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (search, details, availability, weather, etc.), but build_packing_list and get_gear_for_campground both deal with gear recommendations, and check_safety overlaps with the safety section in get_campground_details. However, the descriptions are detailed enough for an agent to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (build_, calculate_, check_, compare_, find_, get_, prepare_, search_) with the exception of health_check, which reverses the order and breaks the pattern. This is a minor deviation.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well-scoped for a comprehensive outdoor trip planning server, covering search, details, availability, weather, safety, gear, and reservations without being excessive or sparse.

Completeness5/5

The server provides end-to-end coverage for planning a camping trip: search and filter campgrounds, get rich details, check availability, prepare reservations, evaluate safety, weather, drive times, gear recommendations, and packing lists. The only missing capability (direct booking) is intentionally excluded due to operator restrictions.

Resources