Skip to main content
Glama
geobio

Airbnb MCP Server

by geobio
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    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.

    Tool Count2/5

    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.

    Completeness2/5

    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.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • Tools from this server were used 4 times in the last 30 days.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    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.

    Conciseness4/5

    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.

    Completeness2/5

    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.

    Parameters3/5

    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.

    Purpose4/5

    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.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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.

  • Behavior2/5

    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.

    Conciseness4/5

    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.

    Completeness2/5

    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.

    Parameters3/5

    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.

    Purpose4/5

    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.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-server-airbnb MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-airbnb MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

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