de en es ja ko ru zh

Hostaway MCP

Name: Hostaway MCP
Author: uncfreak1255-code

by uncfreak1255-code

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

hostaway-mcp

Hostaway向けの読み取り専用、ホスピタリティ特化型MCPサーバー。

このリポジトリはオペレーター製品のみを対象としています：ローカル/npm stdio、6つの読み取り専用ツール、Cloudflare Workerなし、Seascape予約インターフェースなし。

V1の目標

毎回生のAPI呼び出しを手動で記述することなく、CodexやClaudeを実際のHostawayワークフローで役立つようにします。

V1は意図的に範囲を絞っています：

読み取り専用のみ
生のエンドポイントの網羅ではなく、ホスピタリティにネイティブなツール
会話コンテキスト、予約検索、リスティング検索に最適化

Related MCP server: cloudbeds-mcp-server

V1の正確なインターフェース

list_unread_guest_threads
get_conversation_context
get_reservation_brief
get_listing_brief
search_reservations
search_conversations

ローカル開発

npm install
npm test
npm run check
npm run build

stdioサーバーをローカルで実行：

HOSTAWAY_API_TOKEN=your-token-here node dist/cli.js

ローカルnpmパッケージのtarballを作成：

npm pack

公開後、クローンせずに実行：

npx hostaway-mcp

MCPクライアントの設定

ローカルのMCPクライアントの場合、環境変数を通じて HOSTAWAY_API_TOKEN を提供し、公開されたnpmパッケージをstdio経由で起動します。

以下のスニペットは、現在公開されているバージョンに固定されています：

hostaway-mcp@0.2.0

アップグレードする際は、意図的にそのバージョンを更新してください。

Claude Desktop (macOS)

~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json を編集します。

preferences などのトップレベルキーが既にある場合は、それを保持したまま mcpServers を追加してください：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "hostaway": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "hostaway-mcp@0.2.0"],
      "env": {
        "HOSTAWAY_API_TOKEN": "your-token-here"
      }
    }
  }
}

ファイルを保存した後、Claude Desktopを再起動してください。

Codex

~/.codex/config.toml を編集し、以下を追加します：

[mcp_servers.hostaway]
command = "npx"
args = ["-y", "hostaway-mcp@0.2.0"]

[mcp_servers.hostaway.env]
HOSTAWAY_API_TOKEN = "your-token-here"

サーバーが登録されていることを確認：

codex mcp list

ローカルビルドCLI

npmの代わりにリポジトリのチェックアウトを実行したい場合は、クライアントから直接ビルド済みCLIを指定してください：

{
  "command": "node",
  "args": ["/absolute/path/to/hostaway-mcp/dist/cli.js"],
  "env": {
    "HOSTAWAY_API_TOKEN": "your-token-here"
  }
}

環境変数

変数	必須	デフォルト	説明
`HOSTAWAY_API_TOKEN`	はい	—	すべてのリクエストの認証に使用するHostaway APIトークン。
`HOSTAWAY_BASE_URL`	いいえ	Hostaway本番URL	APIベースURLを上書きします（テストに便利）。

V1の対象外

ゲストへのメッセージ送信
予約やリスティングの変更
Cloudflare Workerトランスポート
Seascape予約/配信フロー
Webhookの取り込み
バックグラウンド同期パイプライン
ダッシュボードやオーナー向けレポート
汎用的なREST-to-MCPプロキシの網羅

ソース設計

docs/designs/v1-readonly-hostaway-mcp.md を参照してください。

Available Tools

6 tools

get_conversation_contextC

Return an agent-friendly conversation summary plus recent message history.

Name	Required	Description	Default
`conversationId`	Yes
`detailLevel`	No
`messageLimit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No
`guest`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`channel`	Yes
`listing`	Yes
`missing`	Yes
`preview`	Yes
`attention`	Yes
`listingId`	Yes
`reservation`	Yes
`latestSpeaker`	Yes
`reservationId`	Yes
`conversationId`	Yes
`hasAttachments`	Yes
`recentMessages`	Yes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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.

get_listing_briefC

Return the minimum useful listing context tied to conversations or reservations.

Name	Required	Description	Default
`listingId`	Yes
`detailLevel`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No
`city`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`country`	Yes
`missing`	Yes
`bedrooms`	Yes
`bathrooms`	Yes
`listingId`	Yes
`listingName`	Yes
`personCapacity`	Yes
`channelFacingName`	Yes

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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.

get_reservation_briefC

Return the minimum useful reservation context for an agent or operator.

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reservationId`	Yes
`detailLevel`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No
`notes`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`channel`	Yes
`missing`	Yes
`guestName`	Yes
`listingId`	Yes
`occupancy`	Yes
`guestEmail`	Yes
`arrivalDate`	Yes
`listingName`	Yes
`departureDate`	Yes
`reservationId`	Yes

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

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.

list_unread_guest_threadsB

List recent guest threads with raw unread metadata and derived attention signals.

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`messageLimit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`total`	Yes
`threads`	Yes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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.

search_conversationsC

Lookup conversations by guest name, listing, reservation id, or conversation id.

Name	Required	Description	Default
`conversationId`	No
`reservationId`	No
`guestName`	No
`listingId`	No
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`total`	Yes
`results`	Yes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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.

search_reservationsC

Lookup reservations by guest name, date range, listing, or reservation id.

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reservationId`	No
`guestName`	No
`guestEmail`	No
`listingId`	No
`arrivalStartDate`	No
`arrivalEndDate`	No
`departureStartDate`	No
`departureEndDate`	No
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`total`	Yes
`results`	Yes

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

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.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

6 tool updatesv0.1.0Mar 27, 2026
- First observedget_conversation_context
- First observedget_listing_brief
- First observedget_reservation_brief
- First observedlist_unread_guest_threads
- First observedsearch_conversations
- First observedsearch_reservations

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored 2026-04-07 06:32 across 6 tools

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.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

HubSpotOAuth
com.hubspot.app
The HubSpot MCP Server acts as a bridge that enables AI assistants and Large Language Models to securely interact with HubSpot CRM data through natural conversation, without requiring users to understand complex API structures. It provides read-only access to standard CRM objects (contacts, companies, deals, tickets, products, invoices, and more) and their associations, secured via OAuth 2.0, allowing AI agents to perform tasks like summarizing deals, fetching company updates, and looking up record changes.
Customer Data Platforms Databases Marketing
3
https://app.hubspot.com/mcp/v1/http
BnBGenius MCP for Airbnb hostsOAuth
ai.bnbgenius
Ask your AI about your Airbnb and VRBO listings, bookings, guest messages and reviews. Read-only.
Travel & Transportation Communication Real Estate
1
https://my.bnbgenius.ai/mcp
1stay A
com.stayker
Hotel booking MCP server. Search, book, and manage reservations across 250K+ properties worldwide.
Travel & Transportation E-commerce & Retail App Automation
843
https://mcp.stayker.com/mcp
MAQAMI Travel B
co.maqami.mcp
Official MCP server for MAQAMI, a hotel and flight booking platform with 3M+ hotels. Search live hotel rates and flights, look up places, airports and hotel details, then prebook and book. Remote Streamable HTTP endpoint, no API key required.
E-commerce & Retail Travel & Transportation
411
https://mcp.maqami.co/

Related MCP Servers

guesty-mcp-server
Real Estate Customer Support Finance
DLJRealty
A
license
B
quality
A
maintenance
MCP server for Guesty property management. Manage reservations, guests, messaging, financials, listings, and operations via AI clients.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-09-02 19:20 UTC)
43
100 npm
6
MIT
cloudbeds-mcp-server
Real Estate Travel & Transportation
ronaldoribeirosm
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server that exposes Cloudbeds occupancy, check-ins/check-outs, and reservations as natural language tools, with read-only access and secure credential storage.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-08-04 12:59 UTC)
1
MIT
com.stayingapi/hotel-vacationofficial
Travel & Transportation Search
stayingapi
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
MCP server for searching stays, comparing prices across Booking.com, Airbnb, Vrbo, and Google Hotels, and fetching reviews via natural language in AI assistants.
Updated 6 days ago (2026-10-25 18:06 UTC)
MIT
webhotelier-mcp
Travel & Transportation Search
gabrielnika
F
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
A read-only MCP server that lets AI assistants query the WebHotelier REST API for live hotel data, including property info, room availability, rates, calendars, and offers via natural language tools.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-08-05 20:09 UTC)
8
-

hostaway-mcp

V1の目標

V1の正確なインターフェース

ローカル開発

MCPクライアントの設定

Claude Desktop (macOS)

Codex

ローカルビルドCLI

環境変数

V1の対象外

ソース設計

Available Tools

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

com.stayingapi/hotel-vacationofficial