Retrieve Vrbo listing details by ID to access amenities, photos, FAQs, content sections, and aggregate ratings for trip planning.
Get Vrbo property details. Reads public traveler-facing property details, grouped amenities, photos, content sections, FAQs, and aggregate rating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| property_id | Yes | Vrbo property ID (optionally ending in ha) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does usefully disclose that this is a read of 'public traveler-facing' data, which signals a safe, read-only operation and the kind of content returned. It stops short of noting auth needs, caching/rate limits, or what happens with an invalid or 'ha'-suffixed ID.
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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a compact enumeration of return contents that earns its place given the absence of an output 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 one-parameter detail tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates reasonably by scoping the read as public/traveler-facing and listing the content groups returned. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits sibling routing and any output caveats.
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 the single property_id parameter is documented there (including the 'optionally ending in ha' nuance), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema already states.
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+resource ('Get Vrbo property details') and enumerates what is returned (amenities, photos, content sections, FAQs, rating), so the agent knows this is a single-property detail fetch. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like vrbo_search or vrbo_properties_reviews, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the name alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a property_id from vrbo_search/vrbo_locations_search is required), and no routing to alternatives such as vrbo_properties_reviews for reviews or vrbo_properties_rate_calendar for pricing. Usage context is entirely left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.