Skip to main content
Glama

lilo Vacation Rentals

by io.github.lilo-property

report_rental_inventory_issue

Destructive

Report a missing, damaged, or low-stock inventory item at a vacation rental property. Creates an issue record with optional photo evidence. Pass property_id, item_name, and issue_type (missing, damaged, low_stock, needs_replacement). Optional: description, booking_id, photo_url.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_nameYesName of the inventory item
photo_urlNoURL to photo evidence (optional)
booking_idNoAssociated booking UUID (optional)
issue_typeYesType: missing, damaged, low_stock, needs_replacement
descriptionNoDescription of the issue
property_idYesProperty UUID or lilo_code

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description confirms this by saying 'Creates an issue record' and adds the optional photo evidence. However, it does not disclose any other side effects (e.g., notifications, status changes) beyond the creation itself, which the annotations already imply.

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 three sentences: first states the purpose, second states the effect (creates record) and optional evidence, third lists parameters. It is front-loaded and concise with no redundant or filler language.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema. The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameter usage, and the schema covers parameter formats. It does not mention what the tool returns, but for a creation tool this is often implicit. Overall, the description is sufficient for a competent agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for all 6 parameters, including allowed values for issue_type. The description essentially paraphrases the schema by listing required and optional parameters. It adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 specific verb 'Report' and the resource 'rental inventory issue', making it distinct from sibling tools like get_vacation_rental_inventory (which retrieves inventory) and create_rental_maintenance_task (which handles maintenance). It also enumerates the types of issues (missing, damaged, low-stock) and the context is a vacation rental property.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for usage: to report missing, damaged, or low-stock inventory items. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is specific enough for an agent to infer when to use it. Since no alternatives are named, it stops short of a 5.

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