getColivingReviewsGet user reviews for a specific coliving. Returns review text, ratings, and reviewer information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The coliving URL slug | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of reviews to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions return types (review text, ratings, reviewer info) but lacks disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read operation but could be more transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and concise. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the basics but lacks detail on the return object structure and any pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, providing only a high-level summary of return fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves user reviews for a specific coliving, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools, as no other sibling tool is about reviews.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for fetching reviews but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusion criteria mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search by different criteria, get details, check availability, list categories. The only potential overlap (checkAvailability vs checkAvailabilityBySlug) is differentiated by input type (ID vs slug), which is a reasonable distinction.
All tools follow a consistent camelCase pattern with lowercased verbs followed by nouns (e.g., checkAvailability, getColivingsByBudget). No mixing of conventions (e.g., snake_case, PascalCase) is present.
With 14 tools, the server covers the core operations for a coliving discovery platform: searching by multiple filters, viewing details, checking availability, and accessing metadata. The count feels well-scoped without being overwhelming or sparse.
The tool surface covers the main user journeys: discovering colivings via various criteria, getting detailed information, checking availability, and reading reviews. Minor gaps include the lack of combined filtering (e.g., country + budget) and no booking tool, but these are likely outside the intended read-only scope.