Homesage.ai MCP

Skip Trace: Property Owner

skip_trace_property_owner

Read-only

What it returns

The legal owner of a US residential property given its address — name, mailing address (if different from the property), and contact methods (email and phone with connectivity/verification flags). Built from county records + skip-trace providers.

When to use it

Direct-mail and cold-outreach campaigns for real-estate investors.
Owner verification before drafting an offer.
CRM enrichment by property address.

Pricing

4 credits per address resolved.

FAQ

How fresh is the data?

Upstream providers refresh on their own cadence. Treat data older than 12 months as stale for high-stakes outreach.

Does this work for commercial properties?

Limited. Residential is the primary use case.

What's the difference between this and `associated-people`?

This returns the legal owner (one or two persons). associated-people returns everyone the address can be linked to (residents, relatives, prior owners).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "skip_trace_property_owner"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`property_address`	No	Full US property address to skip-trace for owner information.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the read-only, non-destructive, open-world annotations, it discloses data provenance, a cost of four credits per resolved address, provider-dependent refresh timing, and a 12-month staleness caution. It also sets expectations about limited commercial coverage and the meaning of the contact-data verification and connectivity context.

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 core result is front-loaded, while headings, bullets, and a short FAQ make the pricing, limitations, and sibling comparison easy to scan. Although longer than a minimal description, each section contributes actionable information without filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the definition covers scope, expected results, cost, freshness, data sources, coverage limitations, and selection between sibling tools. The output schema removes any need for additional return-value documentation, and no essential invocation context is missing.

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?

The sole property_address parameter already has a complete schema description specifying a full US property address. The description reinforces the residential scope and per-address pricing but adds no further address formatting, normalization, or example guidance, so the high schema coverage supports a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening identifies the input, operation, and specific output: the legal owner of a US residential property, including name, mailing address, email, and phone details. The FAQ also distinguishes this legal-owner lookup from the broader associated-people search, clearly separating it from its closest sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides three concrete use cases: direct-mail and cold outreach, owner verification before an offer, and CRM enrichment. It also supplies explicit boundaries and selection guidance by noting limited commercial-property support and explaining when to use the associated-people lookup instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Homesage.ai MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser