Skip to main content
Glama

Rated commercial stock in an authority

sourcing_commercial
Read-onlyIdempotent
Rated commercial stock in a local authority, filtered by sector and
rateable value — the commercial sourcing lane. Each row carries its
rateable value, an income-basis value, the freeholder where a title links,
and any auction history.

NO £/m² IS PUBLISHED and you should not compute one. The VOA's measured
area is not loaded, and dividing a hereditament-level rateable value by
the twin's unit-level floor area gives nonsense — it produced £235,301/m²
on a Westminster office before it was removed.

`lad_code` is REQUIRED and is the only scope: this is the one indexed way
into the twin for a bounded set of hereditaments. Use `area_resolve` to
turn a place name into a GSS code.

RATEABLE VALUE IS NOT RENT. It is the VOA's estimate of annual rental
value at the rating list's antecedent valuation date (1 April 2024 for the
2026 list). Do not quote it as passing rent or as income.

`income_basis_value` divides that RV by the district's own commercial
auction yield, so it is an arithmetic conversion anchored to local
evidence, not a valuation — and it reads `not_available` where the
district has no auction yield evidence, because a default yield would
produce a number that looks like a valuation. Report the yield and the
number of lots behind it.

One rating list is loaded (2026), so there is no RV trajectory per
property, no measured floor area from the VOA, and no vacancy signal.
UK only. Costs 10 credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
max_rvNo
min_rvNo
offsetNo
sectorsNo
lad_codeYes
scat_codesNo
with_ownerNo
single_hereditamentNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile, and the description layers on substantial extra behavior: it warns NOT to compute £/m² (with the failure mode that produced £235,301/m²), explains that rateable value is not rent, that `income_basis_value` is an arithmetic conversion that reads `not_available` without local yield evidence, and discloses data limits (one 2026 list, no floor area, no vacancy signal) and a 10-credit cost.

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?

Dense but economical: it opens with the resource and scope, then front-loads the critical caveats (no £/m², RV is not rent) before the mechanical details. The warnings are long but each earns its place by preventing a specific misuse; only minor tightening is possible.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still characterizes row contents. For a complex, 9-parameter analytical tool it covers scope, semantics, limitations, and cost well; the only real gap is the undocumented filter/paging parameters.

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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It documents `lad_code` (required, sole scope), sector and rateable-value filtering, and `with_owner` (freeholder where a title links), but says nothing about `scat_codes`, `limit`, `offset`, or `single_hereditament`. Roughly half the parameters are left to their bare titles.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Rated commercial stock in a local authority') and immediately scopes it as 'the commercial sourcing lane', distinguishing it from siblings like commercial_property and sourcing_live_listings. An agent can tell what it returns (rateable value, income-basis value, freeholder, auction history) without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear operative context: `lad_code` is REQUIRED and 'the only scope', with an explicit pointer to use `area_resolve` to turn a place name into a GSS code, plus 'UK only'. It doesn't compare against nearby alternatives (e.g. commercial_property or sourcing_owners), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources