Hostaway MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are generally well-differentiated by verb (get/search/list) and resource type. While conversation, listing, and reservation domains overlap in hospitality workflows, the tools specify distinct operations (retrieval by ID vs. filtered lists vs. search) that minimize selection errors.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with appropriate verbs (get, list, search). Minor deviation exists in noun choice: two tools use 'brief' while one uses 'context' for similar summary-retrieval purposes, slightly muddling the semantic pattern.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools represent a focused, appropriate scope for guest communication and reservation lookup functionality. The count sits in the ideal range for a specialized retrieval server, avoiding bloat while covering essential read operations.
Completeness3/5
The surface provides comprehensive read access to conversations, listings, and reservations but lacks write operations such as sending messages, creating reservations, or updating listing status. This read-only limitation creates notable gaps for agents attempting to actively resolve guest issues or modify bookings.
Average 2.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 15 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.
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.
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 hints at behavior through 'minimum useful' (suggesting lightweight/summary data), but omits critical operational details like caching, auth requirements, or what happens if the listingId doesn't exist. The mention of 'minimum' is the only behavioral cue beyond the 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?
Single sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with no filler. While appropriately concise for the sentence structure, the extreme brevity is inadequate given the complete lack of schema documentation for the two parameters.
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 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter semantics, doesn't clarify the output structure despite having an output schema (which reduces the burden slightly), and lacks usage guidance. A 'brief' tool with enum options needs more 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%—neither 'listingId' nor 'detailLevel' have descriptions. The description fails to compensate by not mentioning parameters at all. It doesn't explain the 'compact' vs 'full' enum values, the expected format for listingId, or that listingId is required.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('listing context'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_conversation_context' by clarifying this retrieves context 'tied to conversations or reservations.' However, 'minimum useful' is vague and doesn't specify what data fields are included.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'get_reservation_brief' or 'get_conversation_context'. It implies usage through the 'tied to' phrasing but lacks explicit when-to-use criteria or guidance on choosing between 'compact' and 'full' detail levels.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It hints at behavioral scope with 'minimum useful' suggesting limited data retrieval, but fails to explain what 'brief' entails, error handling for invalid reservation IDs, or how the detailLevel parameter interacts with the 'minimum useful' concept.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and contains no redundancy. However, extreme brevity becomes a liability given the lack of schema documentation and annotations; the description prioritizes brevity over necessary instructional content.
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 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe returns), the description should explain parameter semantics, especially the detailLevel enum values and reservationId format, which are completely undocumented elsewhere.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% with no descriptions on reservationId or detailLevel. The description completely fails to compensate for this gap—it does not mention that reservationId accepts string or number, nor explain what 'compact' vs 'full' means in the detailLevel enum. Critical parameter semantics are missing.
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 returns 'minimum useful reservation context' with specific agent/operator audience, establishing verb (Return), resource (reservation context), and scope (minimum useful). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_reservations' or explain why to use this over 'get_conversation_context'.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings include search_reservations and get_conversation_context, the description should specify this retrieves a specific reservation by ID rather than searching, and provides brief context rather than conversation history.
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 provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It doesn't explain what happens when filters are omitted, how the date range logic works (arrival vs departure windows), pagination behavior, or result ordering. The presence of an output schema reduces some burden, but input behavior remains undocumented.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb, no redundant phrases. However, extreme brevity is inappropriate given the tool's complexity (9 parameters with zero schema documentation), making it overly terse rather than efficiently concise.
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?
Inadequate for a 9-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations. Missing critical semantics for date range parameters (which have start/end variants), unmentioned guestEmail parameter, and no explanation of the limit parameter despite its behavioral impact on results.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but falls short. It implicitly covers 7/9 parameters (grouping 4 date fields as 'date range') but completely omits 'guestEmail' and 'limit'. It also fails to explain date formats, exact vs partial matching rules, or that date ranges require paired start/end parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lookup') with clear resource ('reservations') and lists searchable dimensions (guest name, date range, listing, reservation id). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_reservation_brief', which also retrieves reservation data.
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 provided on when to use this versus 'get_reservation_brief' or other siblings. Doesn't mention that all 9 parameters are optional (0 required) or how to combine filters effectively.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only hints at formatting ('agent-friendly') without explaining what that means structurally. Doesn't disclose if this is read-only, cached, or rate-limited, and fails to leverage the existing output schema to describe return value structure.
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?
Single sentence of nine words that front-loads the essential value proposition. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Despite having an output schema and three parameters with zero schema documentation, the description provides minimal context. It doesn't describe the return structure, explain what constitutes 'recent' history, or clarify the 'agent-friendly' formatting.
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 has 0% description coverage, yet the description only loosely alludes to parameters ('recent' hints at messageLimit, 'summary' hints at detailLevel) without explaining constraints, enum meanings (compact vs. full), or the conversationId format requirements.
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 returns a conversation summary and message history, specifying the resource (conversation) and output format (agent-friendly). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_conversations' regarding when to use retrieval vs. search.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus 'search_conversations' or 'list_unread_guest_threads'. No prerequisites mentioned for the required conversationId parameter.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't mention the read-only nature, pagination behavior with the 'limit' parameter, what happens when no filters are provided, or result sorting order.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and contains no waste. However, given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), it is overly terse rather than appropriately concise.
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?
Inadequate for the complexity. With 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and 5 parameters, the description should explain the optional filter behavior and pagination. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden for return value documentation, but parameter and behavioral gaps remain significant.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description compensates partially by mapping 4 parameters to human-readable terms (guest name, listing, etc.), but completely omits the 'limit' parameter and doesn't clarify that all parameters are optional or explain the ID type flexibility (string/number).
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 action ('Lookup') and resource ('conversations'), and lists the searchable fields. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'get_conversation_context' (which likely retrieves a single conversation versus searching multiple).
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_conversation_context' or 'list_unread_guest_threads'. The description lists search criteria but doesn't explain selection logic or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context about return content ('raw unread metadata' and 'derived attention signals') but fails to disclose safety properties (read-only status), rate limits, or pagination behavior expected for a listing operation.
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 no wasted words. Every clause earns its place: 'recent' implies time-sensitivity, 'raw unread metadata' specifies data type, and 'derived attention signals' indicates computed value-add beyond basic listing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately avoids detailing return structures. However, with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the tool lacks complete documentation for its two optional parameters. Adequate but clear gaps remain for a 2-parameter tool.
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%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'recent' loosely implies limiting behavior related to the 'limit' parameter, the description completely omits explanation of both 'limit' and 'messageLimit' parameters and their interaction (e.g., whether messageLimit controls preview depth).
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 provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('guest threads'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like search_conversations or get_reservation_brief by focusing on 'guest' and 'unread' scope. It loses one point for not clarifying what 'attention signals' specifically represent (e.g., priority scoring).
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 like search_conversations or get_conversation_context. It does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or when this unread-focused listing is preferable to general searches.
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:

[![hostaway-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uncfreak1255-code/hostaway-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uncfreak1255-code/hostaway-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hostaway-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uncfreak1255-code/hostaway-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uncfreak1255-code/hostaway-mcp)

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/uncfreak1255-code/hostaway-mcp'

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