Buildability™ — Property Zoning & Buildability™ Intelligence

analyze_property

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get complete property intelligence for any U.S. address — zoning, buildability, flood risk, environmental hazards, and lot data from 20+ government sources (FEMA, EPA, USGS, Census, Regrid). USE WHEN: user asks 'what can I build', 'is this property buildable', 'analyze this address', 'run a report on', 'can I build an ADU', 'tell me about this property', 'is this a good deal', or provides any U.S. street address. RETURNS: Buildability™ Score (0-100), zoning code, permitted uses, FEMA flood zone, setbacks, FAR, environmental risks, lot size, structure info, owner, and AI recommendation. Takes ~20 seconds. Replaces $3,500+ zoning consultant work.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Full U.S. property address (e.g., '123 Main St, Denver, CO 80202'). Accepts any format — will be geocoded.
`persona`	No	User persona for tailored analysis (optional). Changes tone and emphasis: investor=deal metrics, developer=feasibility, homeowner=plain English, lender=collateral risk, broker=disclosure items.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the ~20 second runtime, the breadth of sources (20+ government), and a summary of the returned report contents. This helps set accuracy expectations for the agent and user.

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?

The description is moderately long but well-structured with labeled sections (USE WHEN, RETURNS, time estimate). It front-loads the core purpose, and while the 'Replaces $3,500+ zoning consultant work' is promotional, it adds persuasive context without being overly verbose.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the report includes, what triggers its use, and the time delay. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it does not detail score interpretation or potential error conditions.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, with the address and persona parameters already described in the input schema. The description does not add additional detail about parameter formats or persona effects beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving complete property intelligence for any U.S. address, listing the categories (zoning, buildability, flood risk, etc.) and data sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the comprehensive report while siblings are focused checks.

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?

The 'USE WHEN' section explicitly lists trigger phrases and scenarios, giving clear context for when to deploy this tool. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools or explicit 'when not to use' conditions, though sibling names are available in context.

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

All Buildability™ — Property Zoning & Buildability™ Intelligence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping scope: analyze_property returns zoning, flood, environmental, and a score, while lookup_zoning, check_flood_zone, check_environmental_risks, and get_buildability_score each focus on subsets. An agent could misselect between the full analysis and the targeted lookups, though the descriptions use 'full report' vs 'quick check' and 'specific hazard' to distinguish.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (analyze_property, calculate_buildable_envelope, check_environmental_risks, check_flood_zone, get_buildability_score, lookup_zoning, search_comparable_sales, submit_correction). The verbs vary appropriately by action, and the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each covers a distinct facet of property intelligence: full analysis, zoning, flood, environmental, scoring, envelope calculation, comps, and corrections. The count feels right for the breadth of the domain without being bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the main lifecycle of property evaluation: analysis, score, zoning, flood, environmental, buildable envelope, comps, and a correction mechanism. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for comparing multiple properties or pulling raw property records, but agents can work around these by combining the available tools.

Resources

Need Help?