getColivingByIdGet full details for a specific coliving by its ID or URL slug. Returns comprehensive information including description, location, amenities, pricing, reviews, and accommodation types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The coliving URL slug (e.g., 'sun-and-co', 'nine-coliving') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source for behavioral information. It discloses the return content comprehensively (description, location, amenities, pricing, reviews, accommodation types) but does not specify idempotency, read-only nature, or side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise 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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the input and output categories. However, it could benefit from mentioning that it returns data for a single coliving and not a list, which is implied but not explicit.
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 description mentions both 'ID or URL slug' as input, but the schema defines only a 'slug' parameter. This creates ambiguity about whether ID is accepted, and the schema does not clarify the format for ID. Despite 100% schema description coverage, the tool description introduces confusion that may mislead the agent.
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 states the tool retrieves full details for a specific coliving using an ID or URL slug. It specifies the resource, action, and input mechanism, and is distinct from sibling tools that filter or list colivings by various criteria.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search by different criteria, get details, check availability, list categories. The only potential overlap (checkAvailability vs checkAvailabilityBySlug) is differentiated by input type (ID vs slug), which is a reasonable distinction.
All tools follow a consistent camelCase pattern with lowercased verbs followed by nouns (e.g., checkAvailability, getColivingsByBudget). No mixing of conventions (e.g., snake_case, PascalCase) is present.
With 14 tools, the server covers the core operations for a coliving discovery platform: searching by multiple filters, viewing details, checking availability, and accessing metadata. The count feels well-scoped without being overwhelming or sparse.
The tool surface covers the main user journeys: discovering colivings via various criteria, getting detailed information, checking availability, and reading reviews. Minor gaps include the lack of combined filtering (e.g., country + budget) and no booking tool, but these are likely outside the intended read-only scope.