Skip to main content
Glama
xiaobenyang-com

Airbnb-Search

by xiaobenyang-com
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves details for a specific listing, while the other searches across multiple listings with filters. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the right tool based on whether it needs specific data or a broader search.

    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 uniformity enhances readability and predictability, making the tool set easy to navigate.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for an Airbnb search domain. While the tools cover basic search and detail retrieval, there are likely missing operations such as booking, user reviews, or availability checks, which could limit agent effectiveness in handling comprehensive Airbnb-related tasks.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for an Airbnb domain. It lacks essential operations like booking a listing, checking availability, managing reservations, or accessing user reviews. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform common Airbnb workflows beyond simple searching and viewing details.

  • Average 2.8/5 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 status not available

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • 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 mentions 'Get detailed information' and 'Provide direct links,' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key usage note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

    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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, return values, error conditions, and behavioral constraints. While it states the purpose clearly, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to effectively use the tool without guesswork, especially with undocumented parameters.

    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%, meaning none of the 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what parameters like 'ignoreRobotsText' do, how dates should be formatted, or the purpose of occupancy fields. With low coverage and no compensation in the description, this fails to provide necessary parameter context.

    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'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'airbnb_search' by focusing on details for a specific listing rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling beyond implied scope.

    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 minimal guidance: 'Provide direct links to the user' hints at usage context, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus 'airbnb_search' or other alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

    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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination' (via the cursor parameter) and 'direct links to the user', which adds some context beyond the schema. However, it lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the search results look like (e.g., format, size limits). For a search tool with 12 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search for Airbnb listings') and adds key details ('with various filters and pagination. Provide direct links to the user'). There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

    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 annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, error conditions, or provide enough behavioral context for safe and effective use. The mention of 'direct links' is helpful but insufficient to cover the gaps in parameter documentation and behavioral transparency.

    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 'various filters' which hints at parameters like location, dates, and price, but doesn't explain any specific parameters (e.g., what 'placeId' vs 'location' means, format for 'checkin'/'checkout', what 'ignoreRobotsText' does). With 12 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property names.

    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 which differentiates it from the sibling tool 'airbnb_listing_details' that likely fetches details for a specific listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool, so it's not a perfect 5.

    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 mentions 'various filters and pagination' which implies usage for searching, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'airbnb_listing_details' or other alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or specific scenarios for tool selection.

    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

1777316659557379 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

1777316659557379 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/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659557379'

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