Enables searching for Airbnb listings and retrieving detailed information about specific listings, including descriptions, pricing, location, and amenities.
MCP Server for searching Airbnb and get listing details.
airbnb_search
Search for Airbnb listings
Required Input: location (string)
Optional Inputs:
placeId (string)
checkin (string, YYYY-MM-DD)
checkout (string, YYYY-MM-DD)
adults (number)
children (number)
infants (number)
pets (number)
minPrice (number)
maxPrice (number)
cursor (string)
ignoreRobotsText (boolean)
Returns: Array of listings with details like name, price, location, etc.
airbnb_listing_details
Get detailed information about a specific Airbnb listing
Required Input: id (string)
Optional Inputs:
checkin (string, YYYY-MM-DD)
checkout (string, YYYY-MM-DD)
adults (number)
children (number)
infants (number)
pets (number)
ignoreRobotsText (boolean)
Returns: Detailed listing information including description, host details, amenities, pricing, etc.
Related MCP server: Airbnb MCP Server
Respects Airbnb's robots.txt rules
Uses cheerio for HTML parsing
No API key required
Returns structured JSON data
Reduces context load by flattening and picking data
Before starting make sure Node.js is installed on your desktop for npx to work.
Go to: Settings > Developer > Edit Config
Add the following to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"airbnb": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@openbnb/mcp-server-airbnb"
]
}
}
}To ignore robots.txt for all requests, use this version with --ignore-robots-txt args
{
"mcpServers": {
"airbnb": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@openbnb/mcp-server-airbnb",
"--ignore-robots-txt"
]
}
}
}Restart Claude Desktop and plan your next trip that include Airbnbs!
To install mcp-server-airbnb for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:
npx -y @smithery/cli install @openbnb-org/mcp-server-airbnb --client claudenpm install
npm run buildThis MCP server is licensed under the MIT License.
Airbnb is a trademark of Airbnb, Inc. OpenBnB is not related to Airbnb, Inc. or its subsidiaries
Get detailed information about a specific Airbnb listing. Provide direct links to the user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The Airbnb listing ID | |
| checkin | No | Check-in date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| checkout | No | Check-out date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| adults | No | Number of adults | |
| children | No | Number of children | |
| infants | No | Number of infants | |
| pets | No | Number of pets | |
| ignoreRobotsText | No | Ignore robots.txt rules for this request |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Provide direct links to the user', which hints at output behavior, but doesn't disclose other important traits like whether it's a read-only operation, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence 'Provide direct links to the user' could be integrated more smoothly, and there's some room to add necessary context without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like safety or performance. For a data retrieval tool with multiple optional parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific Airbnb listing.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Airbnb listing'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'airbnb_search' beyond mentioning 'specific' listing versus search. The description adds 'Provide direct links to the user' which clarifies an output behavior.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'airbnb_search'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The only implied usage is for getting details of a known listing, but this isn't explicitly stated as a guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for Airbnb listings with various filters and pagination. Provide direct links to the user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | Location to search for (city, state, etc.) | |
| placeId | No | Google Maps Place ID (overrides the location parameter) | |
| checkin | No | Check-in date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| checkout | No | Check-out date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| adults | No | Number of adults | |
| children | No | Number of children | |
| infants | No | Number of infants | |
| pets | No | Number of pets | |
| minPrice | No | Minimum price for the stay | |
| maxPrice | No | Maximum price for the stay | |
| cursor | No | Base64-encoded string used for Pagination | |
| ignoreRobotsText | No | Ignore robots.txt rules for this request |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'provide direct links to the user', which adds some behavioral context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the search results include (e.g., format, limitations). This is inadequate for a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence ('Provide direct links to the user') could be integrated more smoothly, and there is room for slight improvement in flow.
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?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format, error cases, usage constraints, and differentiation from siblings. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.
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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'various filters and pagination', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('Airbnb listings'), and mentions filters and pagination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'airbnb_listing_details', which likely provides details for specific listings rather than searching.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tool 'airbnb_listing_details'. It mentions 'various filters and pagination' but does not specify contexts or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves detailed information for a specific listing, while the other searches for listings with filters and pagination. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the right tool based on whether it needs a specific listing or a search operation.
Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern with the prefix 'airbnb_' followed by a descriptive verb_noun combination (listing_details and search). This consistency aids in predictability and readability, with no deviations or mixed conventions.
With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for an Airbnb domain, which typically involves operations like booking, user management, reviews, or updates. While the tools cover basic retrieval and search, the count is too low for comprehensive coverage, suggesting significant gaps in functionality.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for an Airbnb server. It lacks essential operations such as booking a listing, managing reservations, handling user accounts, or posting reviews. The current tools only support viewing and searching, leaving major workflows uncovered and likely causing agent failures in real-world scenarios.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Airbnb stays by location and dates, and full listing details, as structured JSON.
Searchable directory of Airbnb listings — discover properties and retrieve direct Airbnb links.
Booking.com stays by destination and dates, and full property details, as structured JSON.
Vacation rental discovery, direct booking, and property protection for AI agents.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/geobio/mcp-server-airbnb'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
