[Travel Intelligence] Search Airbnb listings by location. Returns prices, ratings, amenities, and host info.
Args: location: City or area (e.g. 'Paris, France') checkin: Check-in date YYYY-MM-DD (optional) checkout: Check-out date YYYY-MM-DD (optional) max_results: Max listings to return (default 20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkin | No | ||
| checkout | No | ||
| location | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, indicating a safe, non-deterministic read operation. The description adds that it returns prices, ratings, amenities, and host info, and lists parameters. It does not describe pagination, rate limits, or authentication, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.
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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then a clear args list. It front-loads the key information. Minor improvement would be separating the args list with clearer formatting, but it's efficient overall.
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 low complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, return data, and parameter details. It doesn't mention result ordering or limits beyond max_results, but for a simple search tool this is adequate.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear, human-readable descriptions for each parameter: location (city/area), checkin/checkout (date format YYYY-MM-DD, optional), max_results (default 20). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.
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 tool name 'travel__search_airbnb' clearly indicates Airbnb search. The description states 'Search Airbnb listings by location' and lists returned data (prices, ratings, amenities, host info). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'travel__search_hotels' and 'travel__search_tripadvisor' which cover other services.
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 implies usage for Airbnb data but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool over alternatives. With many travel-related siblings, explicit guidance (e.g., 'Use for Airbnb listings, not hotel or review sites') would be beneficial. Currently, usage context is implied by the tool name and description.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.