Airbnb stays by location and dates, and full listing details, as structured JSON.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly separate purposes: one searches Airbnb listings by location/date/guests, and the other fetches full details for a specific listing URL. There is no overlap in action or input shape that would confuse tool selection.
Both names use the same provider prefix and get-style action, but they inconsistently refer to the same domain object as 'listing' versus 'property'. This is a minor readability issue rather than a breakdown in convention.
Two tools is thin for a general Airbnb MCP server, even though search and detail retrieval are the core read-only operations. Additional operations like review retrieval or availability lookup would reasonably earn a place.
The pair covers discovery and deep-dive enrichment, including pricing, ratings, host info, amenities, and photos. Minor gaps remain, such as dedicated review or calendar operations, but agents can work around them.
Get Airbnb Listings
Searches Airbnb for available stays by location or map bounding box (neLat/neLng/swLat/swLng) and date range (check-in/check-out) with guest composition (adults, children, infants, pets) and nextPageToken pagination. Returns listing id/url, title, price per night and total, rating, review count, coordinates, and photos. Use for travel planning agents, short-term rental market analysis, pricing/occupancy research, and lead lists for property management.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pets | No | Number of pets. | |
| neLat | No | North-east corner latitude of the map bounding box. When all four bounding-box coordinates are provided, listings are searched within the box instead of by location. | |
| neLng | No | North-east corner longitude of the map bounding box. | |
| swLat | No | South-west corner latitude of the map bounding box. | |
| swLng | No | South-west corner longitude of the map bounding box. | |
| adults | No | Number of adults. | |
| checkIn | Yes | The check-in date for the listings. | |
| infants | No | Number of infants. | |
| checkOut | No | The check-out date for the listings. | |
| children | No | Number of children. | |
| location | No | The location to search for listings. Required unless a full map bounding box (neLat, neLng, swLat, swLng) is provided. | |
| nextPageToken | No | The token used to retrieve the next page of results. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing pagination via nextPageToken and listing the returned fields (id/url, price per night and total, rating, reviews, coordinates, photos), which matters since there is no output schema.
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?
Lead sentence is front-loaded with the core action and search dimensions, followed by the return payload and use cases. Content is dense but each part contributes; no meaningful padding.
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?
With 12 parameters at full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating return fields and pagination. It is essentially complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the location-vs-bounding-box interaction. The description adds only a high-level restatement of the search dimensions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: searches Airbnb for available stays by location/bbox and date range. It is clearly a list/search operation, distinguishable from the sibling getAirbnbPropertyDetails (detail lookup). It does not name or contrast the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Provides domain use cases (travel planning, rental market analysis, pricing research, lead lists), which implies when the tool is valuable. However, it offers no when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent to the sibling details tool for single-property lookups. Use cases are present but routing guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get Airbnb Property Details
Fetches the full Airbnb property page by listing URL. Returns title, description, location, coordinates, rating and review count, host profile, room/bed/bath counts, photos, and amenities list. Use for travel-planning agents, deep-dive rate research, photo/amenity enrichment of listings discovered via the listing-search endpoint, and LSTR compliance or market-quality audits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL of the Airbnb listing. Must be a valid Airbnb listing URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a full-page fetch keyed by a valid listing URL, but discloses no rate limits, auth requirements, or edge-case behavior, so the marginal behavioral value 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then use cases – a sensible order. The use-case list is slightly long and marketing-flavored, but each clause carries routing value, so it is efficient without being maximally tight.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the major returned fields (title, location, rating, host, room/bed/bath, photos, amenities). It is complete enough to call correctly; only marginal items like error cases are absent.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'url' parameter is fully documented in the schema as needing a valid Airbnb listing URL. The description's 'by listing URL' phrasing is a restatement rather than added syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Fetches the full Airbnb property page by listing URL', then enumerates the returned fields. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the listing-search sibling by describing this as enrichment of 'listings discovered via the listing-search endpoint'.
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?
Clear context is given through named use cases (travel planning, rate research, photo/amenity enrichment, compliance audits) and it references the listing-search endpoint as the discovery path. It does not state explicit when-not or failure conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
hasdata_airbnb_listing_getAirbnbListingshasdata_airbnb_property_getAirbnbPropertyDetailsAirbnb search, listing details, and calendar availability as clean structured data.
Booking.com stays by destination and dates, and full property details, as structured JSON.
Searchable directory of Airbnb listings — discover properties and retrieve direct Airbnb links.
Airbnb listings by city or room link: price for dates, ratings, amenities, host, location, photos.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
