Hit The Road Rentals
Server Details
Search campervans and motorhomes worldwide. 300+ rental companies. AU, NZ, US, CA, UK and more.
- Status
- Healthy
- Uptime
- 100.0% over 67 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
- Repository
- HitTheRoad-Git/hittheroad-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
list_locations and search_campervans have clearly distinct purposes: one enumerates valid cities, the other performs a search. No overlap exists.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_locations, search_campervans) and use the same snake_case style.
With only two tools, the set feels thin, but the narrow domain of rental search partially justifies the small count. It borders on under-scoped.
The search tool only returns a pre-filled URL, not live results, so the agent cannot fully retrieve rentals, pricing, or availability autonomously. This is a significant gap in the intended workflow.
Available Tools
2 toolslist_locationsARead-onlyInspect
List all searchable pickup cities by country. Call this to find valid city names before searching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Country code filter (e.g. AU, NZ, US). Omit to return all supported countries. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that the list contains 'searchable pickup cities' and that it's for finding 'valid city names before searching,' which gives context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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: the first states the core function, the second gives a direct usage hint. No redundant words or vague filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (searchable pickup cities), how to filter (by country), and when to use it (before searching). No additional information is necessary.
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 100%: the 'country' parameter is fully documented with examples ('e.g. AU, NZ, US') and behavior ('Omit to return all supported countries'). The description's mention of 'by country' aligns with the schema but doesn't add extra semantic detail beyond what's already in the parameter description.
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's purpose: 'List all searchable pickup cities by country.' This uses a specific verb (list) and resource (searchable pickup cities), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_campervans' by focusing on locations rather than campervans.
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 clear usage context: 'Call this to find valid city names before searching.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The implied workflow (get cities, then search) is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_campervansARead-onlyInspect
Search campervan and motorhome rentals. Returns a URL that pre-fills the search form with your trip details. Click Search on the page to see live results with pricing, availability, and booking options from 160+ rental companies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | Pickup city name, e.g. "Sydney", "Auckland", "Los Angeles". Required. | |
| country | Yes | Country code: AU, NZ, US, CA, GB, DE, FR, IT, ES, NL. Required. | |
| pickup_date | Yes | Pickup date YYYY-MM-DD. Required. | |
| dropoff_city | No | Return city if different from pickup (one-way). Optional. | |
| dropoff_date | Yes | Return date YYYY-MM-DD. Required. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond these hints: the tool returns a URL that pre-fills a form rather than returning results directly, requiring the user to click Search to see live pricing and availability. This is meaningful disclosure of how the tool operates.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's function, return value, and required next action.
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 is complete for this simple tool: it explains the tool's output (a URL), the follow-up action needed (click Search), and the scope (160+ rental companies). With comprehensive parameter schemas and safety annotations, the description covers the essential context without needing to document return values since there is no output schema.
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 100%, so all parameters are already documented with types and examples. The description adds a general framing—'pre-fills the search form with your trip details'—but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search campervan and motorhome rentals.' It also explains the unique return behavior—a URL that pre-fills a search form—which distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_locations.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (to search campervan and motorhome rentals) and includes an actionable workflow step: 'Click Search on the page to see live results.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
- First observed
list_locations - First observed
search_campervans
Related MCP Connectors
Search Australian campsites, caravan parks and free camps; weather, gear, road trips and booking.
Live UK caravan, motorhome and campervan search, matching, dealer stock and model research.
Search VanAuto camper and rental listings: specs, photos, prices, equipment, contacts.
Vanlife & RV data: roadbooks, fuel, tolls, visas, holidays, hazards, weather, currency. openvan.camp
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceTravel award search: compare cash vs points on hotels, flights & cars, cents-per-point, and book319MIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceOfficial MCP server for MAQAMI, a hotel and flight booking platform with 3M+ hotels. Search live hotel rates and flights, look up places, airports and hotel details, then prebook and book. Remote Streamable HTTP endpoint, no API key required.124156 npm2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables assistants to plan and verify road trips in a rooftop tent, campervan or motorhome by checking each night, route, schedule and arrival against vehicle rules, camping legality and sunset times. It also surfaces candidate overnight stops, supplies, prices, amenities and host contacts, and can draft information requests to hosts without sending them.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceVacation rental software. A signed stay offer on the host's own domain. Agents discover a host domain, verify an Ed25519-signed offer (VRP), and send the guest to that domain to book and pay the host. Do not compare hosts or prices. HemmaBo + VRP, 6 runtime tools: 2 HemmaBo tools, 2 host onboarding tools, and 2 VRP verification tools. Not an OTA. Not a marketplace.76280 npm4Apache 2.0
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.