lilo-vacation-rentals

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_availability handles pricing/dates, check_guest_risk_score assesses guest risk, create_booking makes bookings, detect_extortion_pattern identifies threats, get_squatter_risk analyzes tenancy risks, and search_properties finds rentals. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (e.g., check_availability, create_booking, search_properties). The verbs are appropriate and descriptive, and there are no deviations in style or convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a vacation rental server, covering key operations like property search, booking, risk assessment, and threat detection. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core workflows such as searching, booking, and risk analysis, but lacks update/cancel operations for bookings and property management features. However, agents can likely work around these minor gaps given the strong coverage of pre-booking and security aspects.
Average 2.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
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 status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only analysis, a destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the tool actually returns. 'AI threat detection' is too vague to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded with the only information provided, it lacks the necessary detail to be genuinely helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a threat detection tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or how it differs from sibling risk assessment tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single 'message' parameter, and the tool description provides no information about what the parameter represents, expected format, or constraints. For a tool with one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'AI threat detection' is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'detect_extortion_pattern' without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't clearly indicate what resource it acts upon or what specific verb it performs beyond the generic 'detection' concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings (check_guest_risk_score, get_squatter_risk, etc.). There's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives for threat detection scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only analysis tool or has side effects, what permissions might be required, whether it makes external API calls, what the output format might be, or any error conditions. The phrase 'analysis' suggests computation but doesn't specify behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just three words - but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's not verbose or repetitive, it fails to provide necessary information that would help an agent understand and use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for its parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by 'squatter risk analysis' and the complete lack of structured documentation, this description fails to provide necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single required 'state' parameter, and the tool description provides absolutely no information about what the parameter represents, what format it expects (state name, abbreviation, code), what values are valid, or how it influences the analysis. The description doesn't mention parameters at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '50-state tenancy analysis' is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'get_squatter_risk' without specifying what action is performed. It mentions 'tenancy analysis' but doesn't clarify whether this assesses, calculates, evaluates, or reports on squatter risk. The purpose is unclear beyond the general domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 the five sibling tools (check_availability, check_guest_risk_score, create_booking, detect_extortion_pattern, search_properties). There's no indication of what problem this tool solves, what context it's appropriate for, or what alternatives exist for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Pre-booking risk assessment' doesn't reveal any behavioral traits—it doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about how the tool behaves.
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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Pre-booking risk assessment', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but based on the dimension's focus on brevity and structure, it scores high.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving risk assessment with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return. With no structured data to rely on, the description fails to provide enough context for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about 'guest_email'. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'guest_email' is used for, its format, or any constraints. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this leaves the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Pre-booking risk assessment' restates the tool name 'check_guest_risk_score' in slightly different words, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what action is performed (e.g., 'assess' or 'calculate') or what resource is involved (e.g., 'guest' or 'booking'), and it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_squatter_risk' or 'detect_extortion_pattern' that might also involve risk assessment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a booking context, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools such as 'check_availability' or 'create_booking' that might be used in similar workflows. There's no explicit or implied context for usage.
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 full burden. 'Real-time pricing and dates' implies read-only behavior and possibly time-sensitive data, but it doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'real-time' means operationally. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic implication.
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 very concise with just three words, which is efficient. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary detail for a tool with one required parameter and no annotations. Still, it's front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 1 required parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'real-time' entails, what the output looks like, or how to interpret results. For a tool that likely returns structured data (pricing/dates), this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'pricing and dates' but doesn't explain the 'property_id' parameter at all—not what it represents, format expectations, or how it relates to the output. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the tool name's implication.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Real-time pricing and dates' indicates the tool provides current pricing and date information, which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what resource this applies to (properties, bookings, etc.) and doesn't specify the verb (check, retrieve, fetch). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'search_properties' or 'create_booking'.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when not to use it. With siblings like 'search_properties' and 'create_booking', there's no indication of how this tool differs in usage scenarios.
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 'instant confirmation', hinting at immediate results, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a write operation (likely, given 'book'), authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits. The description is too brief to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior.
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 extremely concise—just four words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, but for conciseness alone, it's optimal.
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 (a booking tool likely involving writes), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after booking (e.g., confirmation details, errors), prerequisites, or how it interacts with sibling tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't add any meaning about the 'property_id' parameter—it doesn't explain what a property ID is, how to obtain it, or its format. This leaves the parameter undocumented, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Book with instant confirmation' states the action (book) and a key feature (instant confirmation), but it's vague about what resource is being booked. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'check_availability' or 'search_properties' that might involve booking-related functions. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., checking availability first), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'check_availability'. The description implies it's for booking, but without context on timing or constraints.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'finds' vacation rentals, implying a read-only search operation, but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of properties, details), any limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits), or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a search tool with one parameter, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter 'location'. It mentions 'by location', which adds some meaning by indicating the parameter is used for location-based filtering, but doesn't specify format (e.g., city name, coordinates), constraints, or examples. This provides minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find vacation rentals by location' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('vacation rentals'), but it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'check_availability' or 'create_booking', which might also involve vacation rentals. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'check_availability' for availability queries or 'create_booking' for booking actions. Usage is implied from the purpose but not explicitly stated.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lilo-property/mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lilo-property/mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lilo-property/mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lilo-property/mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/lilo-property/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server