Skip to main content
Glama

lilo Vacation Rentals

by io.github.lilo-property

create_rental_maintenance_task

Destructive

Create a new maintenance task for a vacation rental property. Supports one-time and recurring tasks. Pass property_id, task_name, and task_type (hvac_filter, deep_clean, appliance_service, pest_control, exterior, safety_check, other). Optional: priority, description, recurring, frequency_days, due_date.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
due_dateNoDue date (ISO format)
priorityNoPriority: low, medium, high, urgent
recurringNoIs this a recurring task?
task_nameYesName of the maintenance task
task_typeYesType: hvac_filter, deep_clean, appliance_service, pest_control, exterior, safety_check, other
descriptionNoDetailed description
property_idYesProperty UUID or lilo_code
frequency_daysNoDays between occurrences (if recurring)

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, establishing that this is a mutating operation. The description adds context about one-time vs. recurring tasks but does not explain what recurrent creation entails or any side effects, so it provides modest extra value beyond the annotations.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and parameters listed compactly. Every word adds useful information; no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the 8 parameters and lack of an output schema, the description successfully covers all inputs, but it does not describe the return value, error behavior, or how recurring tasks are configured beyond the parameter names. The annotations fill the safety context, making this adequate but incomplete for a create operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates required and optional parameters and lists task_type values, but these are already fully described in the schema; no additional semantic meaning is provided.

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 first sentence states a specific action ('Create a new maintenance task') with a clear resource ('vacation rental property'), and the mention of one-time/recurring tasks plus enumerated task types distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like get_rental_maintenance_schedule.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tool mentions are present. Usage is implied by the verb 'Create', but the description does not address when to use this vs. other maintenance-related tools such as get_rental_maintenance_schedule or report_rental_inventory_issue.

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