Skip to main content
Glama

tickadoo-mcp

by io.github.tickadoo

compare_experiences

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants a side-by-side comparison of 2-5 specific products. Pass the slug for each. Returns a comparison table plus per-axis winners (value, rating, popularity, family-fit).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugsYesProduct slugs from earlier search or recommend results.
formatNoResponse shape. 'json' returns structured records; 'text' returns the same content rendered as a short narrative paragraph for chat surfaces.json
languageNoBCP-47 language code for human-readable fields (e.g., 'en', 'fr-FR'). Defaults to English when omitted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNo
detailNo
winnerNo
messageNo
comparisonNo
error_typeNo
differencesNo
schema_versionNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "comparison": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "detail": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "differences": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "error_type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "schema_version": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "text": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "winner": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / default
      Previous value: -"text"New value: +"json"
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Previous value: -"Response format: text (default) or json"New value: +"Response shape. 'json' returns structured records; 'text' returns the same content rendered as a short narrative paragraph for chat surfaces."
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "text",
-  "json"
-]New value: +[
+  "json",
+  "text"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / language / default
      Removed value: -"en"
    • changedInput schema / properties / language / description
      Previous value: -"Supported language code for localised booking URLs (e.g. 'en', 'de', 'fr', 'es', 'ja', 'pt-br')"New value: +"BCP-47 language code for human-readable fields (e.g., 'en', 'fr-FR'). Defaults to English when omitted."
    • changedInput schema / properties / slugs / description
      Previous value: -"Array of 2-5 tickadoo slugs or booking paths to compare side-by-side."New value: +"Product slugs from earlier search or recommend results."
    • removedInput schema / properties / slugs / items / minLength
      Removed value: -1
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is transparent. However, the description says it 'Returns a comparison table,' while the schema's format parameter states text format returns 'a short narrative paragraph' — so the claimed output shape is not accurate across all supported modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the use case, and no filler. It earns most of its space, but the 'comparison table' wording is slightly imprecise given the text/narrative format option, which costs a point.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is mostly complete: it communicates cardinality, required input, and output highlights. The only material gap is the inconsistent return-format claim, which could mislead an agent choosing between json and text.

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%, so the schema already documents slugs, format, and language. The description only restates the slug requirement and adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 names a specific operation — side-by-side comparison — and bounds it to 2-5 specific products. It also previews the output (comparison table plus per-axis winners), which distinguishes it clearly from search, recommendation, and detail-lookup siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user wants a side-by-side comparison of 2-5 specific products.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the full 5, but the context is clear.

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

All tickadoo-mcp 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap heavily. search_experiences, search_by_mood, recommend_experiences, search_local_experiences, and find_nearby_experiences all return ranked experience lists with only slightly different input axes. Curated list tools like get_date_night, get_family_day, get_hidden_gems, get_last_minute, get_whats_on_this_week, and whats_on_tonight are also nearly indistinguishable in output shape and purpose, just with different filters. check_availability and get_availability clearly duplicate availability checking

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_experience_details, search_by_mood, list_cities, plan_itinerary). Minor deviations like whats_on_tonight (missing 'get') and check_availability versus get_availability are small inconsistencies but do not cause confusion

Tool Count3/5

23 tools is on the heavy side for an experience-discovery and booking-assistant server. The count is justified by many curated scenarios, but several tools could be consolidated (e.g., all the list-based get_* and whats_on_* tools could be one parameterized tool). It is not excessive enough to be a major problem

Completeness3/5

The domain of discovering and checking availability for experiences is well covered: search, filter by mood/place/natural language, get details, check availability, compare, get related items, and find transportation. However, there are notable gaps: get_travel_tips returns only experience rows despite claiming tips, get_city_guide similarly returns a limited payload, and there is no tool for actual booking/reservation (though the booking link may be external). The legacy check_availability seems redundant

Resources