Skip to main content
Glama

HemmaBo Host Booking Engine

by com.hemmabo

verify_vacation_rental_node

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify that a vacation-rental host domain is a valid Vacation Rental Protocol (VRP) node before trusting it. Reads the domain's .well-known/vacation-rental.json and JWKS. Read-only trust check: no availability, pricing, booking, or payment — do NOT use it to answer those questions. Use when a host domain arrives from outside search (user-typed or third-party); domains returned by hemmabo_search_properties can go straight to get_verified_stay_offer. On success, call get_verified_stay_offer with the same domain and stay dates. The single input is the host domain as a bare hostname (no scheme or path); public domains only — IPs, ports, and local/private hostnames are refused. Pass the node's canonical domain exactly — www and apex are distinct identities, and verification fails when the domain's declared canonical_domain differs from the one you passed. Verification reads that domain's own .well-known and JWKS, so the result is only as trustworthy as the exact domain you pass.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesHost-owned domain without protocol or path (e.g. 'villaakerlyckan.se', 'myvilla.it'). Invalid: 'https://...', paths, ports, or booking URLs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when verified=false or the node cannot be checked.
domainYesEchoed canonical host domain that was checked.
signingNoSummary of accepted signing algorithms, key ids, and signing-key checks.
jwks_urlNoHost-domain JWKS URL containing the Ed25519 public keys used to verify signed offers.
protocolNoProtocol identifier discovered on the host domain, typically 'vrp'.
verifiedYesTrue only when discovery, JWKS, signing metadata, and verified-offer endpoint checks pass.
discovery_urlNoThe .well-known vacation-rental discovery URL read from the host domain.
protocol_versionNoVRP version declared by the host discovery document.
verified_stay_offer_urlNoHost-domain endpoint template or URL used to request signed verified stay offers.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail beyond these: it reads the domain's .well-known and JWKS files, is a read-only trust check, refuses IPs/ports/local hostnames, and stresses that verification is only as trustworthy as the exact domain passed. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is detailed and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is somewhat long. However, every sentence carries weight—there is no fluff, and the added complexity of VRP verification justifies the length. It could be tightened slightly, but the structure is logical and informative.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's behavior, input requirements, usage conditions, and post-call action. For a trust check with a single parameter and clear constraints, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the domain parameter with a pattern and example. The description goes further by clarifying critical semantics: bare hostname only (no scheme/path), public domains only, and the crucial caveat that www and apex are distinct identities and the canonical domain must match exactly. This prevents common failures and adds real value beyond the schema.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: verifying that a host domain is a valid VRP node by reading its .well-known/vacation-rental.json and JWKS. It explicitly distinguishes itself from hemmabo_search_properties and from tools that answer availability, pricing, booking, or payment questions, making its role unambiguous among the sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when a host domain arrives from outside search') and when not to use ('domains returned by hemmabo_search_properties can go straight to get_verified_stay_offer'). It also instructs the follow-up call to get_verified_stay_offer with the same domain and dates, and lists constraints like public domains only. This leaves no ambiguity about the correct invocation context.

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

All HemmaBo Host Booking Engine 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

A4.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by lifecycle stage (search, availability, quote, lock, checkout, status, cancel, reschedule), but get_verified_stay_offer, hemmabo_booking_quote, and hemmabo_booking_negotiate all touch pricing and could be confused in a quick selection. The descriptions do a strong job of disambiguating them, so only one or two pairs are genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a consistent hemmabo_<domain>_<action> pattern with snake_case throughout. Minor deviations exist: hemmabo_booking_status is a noun rather than a verb, and get_verified_stay_offer / verify_vacation_rental_node break the hemmabo_ prefix convention.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well within the ideal range for a booking engine. Each tool maps to a distinct step in the guest journey or host onboarding flow, and none feel redundant or purely decorative.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full guest lifecycle: discovery, availability, pricing, price locking, checkout, pending booking creation, status lookup, cancellation, and rescheduling. Host-side onboarding is also represented, and the VRP verification/offer tools complete the trust and signed-offer path without leaving obvious dead ends.

Resources