Airbnb stays by location and dates, and full listing details, as structured JSON.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for listings with criteria, the other fetches detailed information for a specific property. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a similar pattern with 'hasdata_airbnb_' prefix, but there is minor inconsistency: 'listing' vs 'property' and 'getAirbnbListings' (plural) vs 'getAirbnbPropertyDetails'. The pattern is recognizable but not perfectly uniform.
With only two tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for a focused Airbnb read-only API. It does not feel bloated; the count is appropriate for the narrow domain.
The tools cover the core needs: discovering listings and retrieving detailed property info. Missing operations like booking or explicit availability checks are not typical for a listing data provider, so the surface seems complete for its stated purpose.
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, photos, host info, room/bed/bath counts, and amenities summary. 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?
The tool is described as a read-oriented search operation that 'returns' listing data, and no side effects are implied. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention rate limits or error behavior.
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 well-organized and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by output details and use cases. It is slightly verbose with repeated phrases and use-case enumeration, but still efficient and easy to scan.
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?
The description covers the main invocation patterns, required and optional input categories, pagination, and a broad list of returned fields. Since there is no output schema and annotations are absent, it carries a heavier burden; it could be more complete by specifying date format and the exact relationship between check-in and check-out requirements.
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 complete and parameter descriptions add useful semantics, especially the requirement that location is needed unless all four bounding-box coordinates are provided. Missing details such as date format and the exact required combination of check-in/check-out slightly reduce the score.
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 identifies the tool as a search operation for Airbnb listings by location or bounding box and date range, and enumerates the returned data. Its listing-focused scope is easily distinguished from the sibling property-details tool.
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 provides concrete use cases and explains the two main search modes (location vs. bounding box), along with pagination via nextPageToken. It does not explicitly contrast the sibling property-details tool, but the intended usage context is still clear.
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, price breakdown, cleaning/service fees, rating and review distribution, host profile, room/bed/bath counts, photos, amenities list, house rules, cancellation policy, and availability calendar hints. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Fetches' which implies a read operation, and the title indicates GET. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention rate limits, latency, or any side effects. The detailed field list is helpful, but behavioral expectations beyond a straightforward fetch are not disclosed.
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 dense but not bloated. It front-loads the purpose and then lists the returned fields and use cases. Every sentence adds value, though the field list could be trimmed slightly. It remains efficient 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?
Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields thoroughly (title, description, location, coordinates, fees, ratings, host, counts, photos, amenities, rules, policy, calendar hints). It also covers typical use cases. It does not address error handling, pagination, or timeouts, but for a single-URL fetch those are minor gaps.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter, which is described as a valid Airbnb listing URL. The description confirms this by saying 'by listing URL' but adds no new semantics (e.g., format, validation rules, or URL variants). With full schema coverage, 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?
The description opens with a clear verb+resource ('Get Airbnb Property Details') and immediately specifies the input (listing URL). It enumerates the full set of returned fields, which leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also explicitly ties it to the sibling listing-search endpoint, making differentiation straightforward.
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 lists concrete use cases: travel-planning, deep-dive rate research, photo/amenity enrichment, and compliance audits. It references the listing-search endpoint as the source of discovered listings, which implies the sibling is for searching while this is for detail retrieval. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the use cases and the mention of the sibling provide adequate guidance.
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_getAirbnbPropertyDetailsBooking.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 & short-term rental market analytics: occupancy, ADR, RevPAR, revenue, comparables.
Redfin for-sale, for-rent and sold listings plus full property pages, as structured JSON.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
