getColivingsByLocationSearch for coliving spaces by location name. Searches across city, region, country name, and coliving name. Use this for flexible location searches like 'Bali', 'Lisbon', 'Barcelona'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| query | Yes | Location search query (city, region, country, or coliving name) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the multi-field search scope but omits key behavioral details such as result order, pagination, partial matching, and response format. For a search tool, this is insufficient transparency.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value. Ideal for quick scanning.
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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It could provide more context on result behavior and differentiation from siblings to fully empower the agent.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples for the query parameter but essentially restates the schema description for 'query'. The 'limit' parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema. Thus, marginal added value.
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 'Search for coliving spaces by location name' and specifies the search covers city, region, country, and coliving name. While it distinguishes this tool as flexible, it does not explicitly contrast with more specific siblings like getColivingsByCountry, making it slightly less than perfect.
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 advises 'Use this for flexible location searches' and provides concrete examples ('Bali', 'Lisbon', 'Barcelona'). It implies suitable scenarios but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.
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.