Skip to main content
Glama

Owners in an area, ranked as an approach list

sourcing_offmarket_owners
Read-onlyIdempotent
Who owns the stock in an area, ranked as an approach list: units held here,
total value and equity, average and longest years held, how many of their
units are on a short lease or already on the market, company status, and
the signals behind the rank. Pass a `strategy` to rank the owners of only
the units that preset points at — the owners of short-lease flats in a
borough, say.

COMPANIES ONLY, by construction: owners are grouped by company number, so
units held by private individuals have no group to appear in. They are
counted under `not_itemised` and never listed, and you must not attempt to
identify them by other means. Report the `scope.share_itemised` figure so
the user knows what fraction of the area the list covers.

`national_portfolio` reads `not_available`: only the in-area holding is
known, and it is not the owner's whole book — do not present it as one.
UK only. Costs 10 credits (10p).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
lad_codeNo
strategyNo
min_unitsNo
postcode_districtNo
strategy_overridesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the companies-only grouping by company number, where private individuals go (`not_itemised`), the null `national_portfolio` semantics, the instruction to report `scope.share_itemised`, UK-only scope and a 10-credit cost. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that prevents misuse.

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?

It front-loads what the tool returns and then layers constraints and caveats in short, purposeful paragraphs. The opening enumeration of metrics is slightly dense but each sentence carries operational information; nothing is filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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, yet the description usefully flags the `not_itemised` and `national_portfolio` edge cases and the cost. The remaining hole is geographic input: with no schema descriptions, an agent is not told which of the two location parameters to supply or whether either is required.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load, yet it explains only `strategy` meaningfully. It never clarifies the area-selection pair `lad_code` vs `postcode_district`, nor `min_units` (default 2), `limit`, or `strategy_overrides`, which an agent must guess at.

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 states a specific resource (owners of stock in an area) and returns it as a ranked approach list, enumerating the metrics returned. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling sourcing_owners by the emphasis on ranking owners rather than stock, though it never explicitly names or contrasts any sibling tool.

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?

It gives a concrete usage rule for the `strategy` parameter ('rank the owners of only the units that preset points at') with an example. It also sets a hard usage boundary ('COMPANIES ONLY... do not attempt to identify them by other means'). However, it offers no guidance on when to use this versus sourcing_owners, ownership_by_company, or owner_profile.

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