list_listing_sitesList the listing sites (channels, e.g. Airbnb, Vrbo) known to OwnerRez. OwnerRez API: GET /v2/listingsites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return per page (default set by OwnerRez, typically 10). | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip (for paging; combine with limit). | |
| params | No | Additional documented query-string filters to send verbatim (merged with the typed params above). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / params / additionalProperties / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / params / additionalProperties / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number",
+ "boolean"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read, so the description carries less burden. It adds the underlying endpoint (GET /v2/listingsites), which helps an agent map to the raw request tool, but says nothing about result shape or whether the list is paginated nor how many channels typically exist.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the API mapping. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.
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 read-only list endpoint with no output schema, full parameter documentation and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. The only mild gap is return-volume/pagination expectations, which the schema partly addresses.
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% and all three parameters (limit, offset, params) are documented there, including paging semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the listing sites') and clarifies the term with concrete examples ('channels, e.g. Airbnb, Vrbo'), which effectively separates it from the adjacent list_listings tool. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally disambiguating.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_listings or ownerrez_request, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.
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.