/vendor/lime/AgentRouting.json or
/vendor/lime/AgentContext.json directly.
lime.com
Overview
Does lime.com support MCP?
No confirmed MCP support was found for lime.com as of 2026-07-01.
What agentic protocols does lime.com support?
As of 2026-07-01, lime.com has confirmed support for openai_apps_sdk.
Is lime.com's API publicly accessible or partner-gated?
Open.
Does lime.com explicitly prohibit automated access?
Yes. lime.com's terms of service explicitly prohibit automated or scraper access to the public website without prior written permission.
Is lime.com agent-ready?
Partial. lime.com supports some agentic workflows but requires a human handoff for certain operations — see the protocols and summary sections for details.
Protocols
No evidence that Lime (lime.com) is involved in the A2A / Agent2Agent protocol as a launch partner or adopter. The Google launch announcement lists technology partners such as Atlassian, Box, Cohere, Intuit, PayPal, Salesforce, SAP, and Workday — none of which is Lime. No vendor-specific evidence found linking lime.com to A2A adoption or implementation.
No usable finding available for this protocol (no legitimate scan available within the candidate window).
No evidence that Lime (lime.com), the micromobility/scooter company, appears among the 60+ named AP2 launch partners or any subsequent AP2 partner lists. Named launch partners include PayPal, Mastercard, American Express, Adyen, Coinbase, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Worldpay, and Klarna — all financial/commerce entities, not mobility operators. Lime's own partner pages concern transit operator integrations, not payment protocol participation.
No evidence of Lime (li.me / lime.com, the micromobility company) publishing or supporting a Model Context Protocol server or client. Searches surfaced only a third-party viaSocket wrapper (viasocket.com/mcp/lime) that aggregates many apps under its own MCP layer — this is a platform-level product, not a Lime-native offering. Lime's official developer documentation at docs.lime.co covers REST APIs (GBFS, Direct REST) with no MCP surface mentioned.
No evidence that lime.com is an MPP launch partner or has implemented the Machine Payments Protocol. Known MPP ecosystem partners at launch (March 2026) include Anthropic, DoorDash, Mastercard, Nubank, OpenAI, Ramp, Revolut, Shopify, and Standard Chartered — Lime does not appear on any such list. Lime's partner-facing programs (transit operators, logistics providers) are unrelated to agentic machine payment settlement. Not confirmed_absent because no vendor-specific statement from Lime explicitly disclaiming MPP was found.
NLWeb launch partners identified in press coverage include Condé Nast, Redfin, Eventbrite, Priceline, and O'Reilly — Lime (lime.com, the micromobility/e-bike/scooter rental company) does not appear in any known launch partner list or NLWeb-related announcement. No evidence of /ask or /mcp endpoints on lime.com. Not confirmed_absent because no vendor-specific statement or deprecation notice from Lime was found; rather, there is simply no evidence of adoption.
No evidence found that Lime (lime.com, the micromobility/e-scooter company) has implemented or announced UCP integration. Searches surfaced only retail and physical-goods merchants in UCP coverage; Lime was not mentioned as a UCP participant. Lime's service is a ride/rental model rather than traditional product checkout, making UCP applicability unclear without vendor-specific evidence.
No evidence found that lime.com (Lime micromobility) has implemented or announced WebMCP support. Searches surfaced only general WebMCP protocol coverage (co-developed by Google and Microsoft, currently in early preview/W3C draft stage) and Lime's existing data-sharing infrastructure (MDS Provider API, GitHub repos). Named early adopters and examples in WebMCP coverage do not include Lime.
No evidence that lime.com (the Caribbean telecom/Cable & Wireless brand) is a launch partner or adopter of the x402 stablecoin micropayment protocol. Confirmed x402 launch partners include Coinbase, Cloudflare, Stellar, and Allium, with no mention of lime.com in any partner list or announcement. Note: the domain lime.com resolves to a Caribbean telecom operator, not the Lime scooter/micromobility brand (li.me), which also has no confirmed x402 presence.
Custom GPT published in the ChatGPT GPT Store under the name 'Lime'; the specific scope and actions of this GPT (e.g., whether it connects to Lime's mobility services or is a general-purpose assistant) cannot be confirmed from public metadata alone, but it is listed at a dedicated ChatGPT GPT URL.
A custom GPT titled 'Lime' exists on the OpenAI ChatGPT platform at https://chatgpt.com/g/g-V3tV8MaCL-lime. It is unclear from public search metadata whether this GPT was published by Lime (lime.com) or a third party, and whether it integrates with Lime's scooter/bike services. No vendor-specific documentation or announcement from lime.com about this GPT was found.
No usable finding available for this protocol (no legitimate scan available within the candidate window).
Four web searches targeting lime.com specifically for llms.txt, AGENTS.md, /.well-known/agent, and similar self-declaration files returned no lime.com-specific results — all hits were about the standards themselves or other vendors such as Shopify. Direct HTTP fetching of lime.com was not possible due to DNS resolution being blocked in the research sandbox, so this is a not_found based on the absence of any web-indexed or vendor-published evidence rather than a confirmed direct inspection. No lime.com announcements, developer blog posts, or third-party references to any such file on lime.com were found.
Summary
Has agent interface: partial
Verify whether the 'Lime' custom GPT at https://chatgpt.com/g/g-V3tV8MaCL-lime was published by lime.com (the micromobility company) or a third party, and whether it connects to Lime's actual mobility services via Actions; also check Lime's official developer documentation at docs.lime.co for any newly added agentic or MCP-adjacent surfaces.
AgentContext
Verified discrepancies
Vendor claim: Lime's published refund policy states that rides are non-refundable, but that 'if something goes wrong with your ride, our team will review your case and may, at our discretion, issue a refund' — implying case-by-case review is available for service failures.
What actually happens: Multiple documented user complaints show that Lime charges users for rides or unlocks when no service is actually rendered (e.g., scooter locked out during restricted hours, app errors preventing access to discounted passes), then denies refunds by citing the blanket non-refundable policy rather than exercising the discretionary review it advertises. In at least one BBB-documented case, Lime confirmed the denial in writing and subsequently stopped responding.
Agent guidance: Do not rely on Lime's stated discretionary refund process to resolve failed transactions or service non-delivery. If completing a transaction on behalf of a user, document all ride confirmation details and screenshots at time of booking. If a ride is charged but not rendered, advise the user to immediately dispute the charge with their card issuer rather than relying on Lime's internal review process, as Lime consistently applies the blanket non-refundable policy even in no-service scenarios.
- BBB complaint documents a user charged $15 for a scooter that was unavailable until 5am, with no service rendered; Lime collected the fee and the user reported no refund was issued.
- BBB review documents a user overcharged over $200 due to a Lime app error preventing Lime Pass purchase; Lime refused a refund 'citing their policy' and then stopped responding to emails.
- Lime's own Help Center states rides are non-refundable except where required by law, with discretionary review available 'if something goes wrong' — the policy that users report is not being applied in practice.
Human handoff required for
Escalate to a human when a Lime ride has been charged to the user but no service was rendered (e.g., scooter failed to unlock, app error prevented access, vehicle locked out during restricted hours), because Lime consistently applies a blanket non-refundable policy even in documented no-service scenarios rather than conducting the discretionary case-by-case review it advertises — making an agent-initiated refund request through Lime's internal process unlikely to succeed and potentially consuming the user's dispute window.
Escalate to a human when a user wants to pursue a refund for a failed Lime transaction and the 10-business-day window for notifying Lime (per their user agreement) is approaching or has passed, because relying on Lime's internal review process risks losing both the internal remedy and the ability to dispute with the card issuer within the issuer's own deadline.
Five categories were checked for lime.com: (1) discrepancy_pricing — searched for hidden fees, deceptive pricing, and regulatory actions; found consumer complaints about unexpected charges and a 'local costs' surcharge but no verified enforcement action or regulatory finding clearing the inclusion bar; (2) discrepancy_availability — searched for ghost inventory, bait-and-switch, or rate-switch issues; found no verified reports of advertised availability or rates not honored at point of transaction; (3) discrepancy_identity — searched for merchant-of-record ambiguity or liability deflection to third parties; found no evidence of such practices, with Lime appearing to operate as a direct merchant; (4) discrepancy_policy — a finding was confirmed: Lime advertises discretionary refund review for service failures but consistently applies a blanket non-refundable policy in documented no-service scenarios, creating a material gap between stated and actual policy; (5) discrepancy_undisclosed_constraint — searched for geofencing, ride-zone, or booking limitations not disclosed prior to transaction initiation; found editorial criticism of Lime's geofencing accuracy for municipal commitments but no evidence of transactional constraints systematically hidden from end-users. No scan results were blocked or missing; all five categories received substantive search coverage.