Skip to main content
Glama

lilo Vacation Rentals

by io.github.lilo-property

analyze_guest_communication_risk

Read-only

Analyze guest messages at a vacation rental for concerning patterns. Returns risk assessment, evidence documentation, and response guidance for hosts. Alias for detect_guest_communication_risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesGuest message to analyze for risk patterns
booking_idNoBooking UUID for evidence chain
guest_nameNoGuest name for documentation
property_idNoProperty UUID for cross-reference
conversation_historyNoPrevious messages for conversation context analysis

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns risk assessment, evidence documentation, and response guidance, giving the agent expectations about the output. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and includes essential output details without filler. Every clause serves a purpose, making it concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only analysis tool with a rich input schema (5 parameters) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and returns without being exhaustive. It also references the alias, which adds contextual completeness by linking to the canonical tool, though a bit more detail on response format could improve it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description's mention of 'guest messages' aligns with the required 'message' parameter but adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action ('Analyze guest messages') and the specific resource ('at a vacation rental') with a clear goal ('for concerning patterns'). It also specifies the outputs, distinguishing it from more generic analysis tools, and the alias note links it to a sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for guest message risk analysis but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like detect_guest_message_threat_pattern or analyze_guest_interaction_risk. The alias reference provides a clue but no exclusions or alternatives, leaving selection decisions partially ambiguous.

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

All lilo Vacation Rentals 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap and redundancy among tools, causing ambiguity. For example, analyze_booking_threat_risk, analyze_guest_communication_risk, and analyze_guest_interaction_risk are aliases or near-duplicates, and multiple tools like get_vacation_rental_details and fetch_vacation_rental_details appear to serve the same purpose. This makes it difficult for an agent to choose the correct tool without confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_vacation_rental_availability_and_pricing, get_vacation_rental_details), which aids readability. However, there are minor deviations, such as some tools using 'analyze' vs. 'assess' or 'detect' for similar risk functions, and a few tools like 'ingest_philadelphia_public_records' use a different verb style, but overall the naming is largely predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 67 tools, the count is excessive for a vacation rental server, leading to bloat and potential overwhelm. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple risk analysis tools, duplicate property detail fetchers), and the scope feels unfocused, including niche tools like those for Philadelphia events or World Cup compliance that might be better handled as parameters in broader tools.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the vacation rental domain, including booking, risk assessment, compliance, maintenance, evidence management, and guest interactions. There are no obvious gaps; it supports full CRUD/lifecycle operations and specialized workflows, ensuring agents can handle most scenarios without dead ends.

Resources