Skip to main content
Glama

search_rentals_structured

Use ONLY when the query consists entirely of explicit numeric/categorical constraints with NO descriptive language (no mood, view, atmosphere, or aesthetic words). Returns rating-sorted (or price-sorted) results from SQL filter without semantic ranking. For ANY query containing descriptors like 'cozy', 'quiet', 'luxury', 'river view', 'modern', use search_rentals_natural instead — it produces better results in a single call. Returns Schema.org Accommodation format.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort order (default: rating_desc)
limitNoMax results (default 10)
bedroomsNoExact number of bedrooms (not a minimum). Matches search_rentals_natural semantics — '2룸' returns exactly 2-bedroom rentals.
locationNoLocation name in Korean (e.g., '강남', '강남역', '홍대')
amenitiesNoRequired amenities (e.g., ['wifi', 'parking'])
bathroomsNoMinimum bathrooms required
mood_tagsNoMood tags (e.g., ['luxury', 'cozy'])
max_guestsNoMinimum guest capacity required
view_typesNoView types (e.g., ['river', 'city', 'mountain'])
pet_allowedNoPet-friendly rentals only
kid_friendlyNoKid-friendly rentals only
property_typeNoProperty type (e.g., '아파트', '펜트하우스', '주택')
is_private_entireNoEntire private space (not shared)
max_price_per_weekNoMaximum price per week in KRW
min_price_per_weekNoMinimum price per week in KRW

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does mention SQL filtering, no semantic ranking, and Schema.org output format, but it contradicts itself by claiming no mood/view words are allowed while the schema exposes mood_tags and view_types. This misrepresentation undermines transparency about the tool's actual capabilities.

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 critical usage condition, and efficiently communicates key behaviors and alternatives without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, alternatives, output format, and key limitations. However, the internal contradiction about mood/view reduces completeness by failing to accurately explain how those parameters fit into the 'structured' paradigm.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema descriptions, and the 'no mood/view' wording conflicts with the schema's mood_tags and view_types parameter descriptions, potentially misleading the agent about when to use those parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns sorted results from an SQL filter and distinguishes it from search_rentals_natural. However, it says 'NO descriptive language (no mood, view...)' while the input schema includes mood_tags and view_types parameters, creating ambiguity about the actual scope of the tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use ONLY when the query consists entirely of explicit numeric/categorical constraints' and directly names the alternative tool for descriptive queries ('use search_rentals_natural instead'). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: two search variants are clearly separated by query type, and get_rental_details is for post-search detail retrieval. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: search_rentals_natural, search_rentals_structured, get_rental_details. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a well-scoped set for a rental search and details server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full agent workflow: search (natural and structured) and retrieve details. Booking is intentionally outside the agent's scope, so there are no missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources