Sourced property-tax protest facts; homeowner reviews and files. Not a law firm; no outcome claims.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool covers a distinct operation: property context lookup, explaining evidence categories, and fetching county filing requirements. There is no functional overlap in target or action, leaving little room for agent misselection.
All tools share the fairpath_ prefix and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check, explain, get). The naming convention is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is within the ideal well-scoped range for a narrow evidence-intake domain. Each tool covers a distinct requirement and none feels redundant.
The server only provides lookups and explanation and does not offer a tool to assemble, update, or finalize an evidence packet, despite the 'Property-Tax Evidence' purpose. This is a significant dead end for agents that need to produce or modify actual evidence submissions.
Look up a homeowner-provided address and return bounded property context. This requires explicit address consent, creates a private audit record, and may create or reuse short-lived scoped session and consent records. It does not expose owner, payment, or raw county records or change an external system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The homeowner-provided property address to check. | |
| context | No | ||
| consentedAt | Yes | When the homeowner explicitly approved this address lookup. | |
| consentEvidenceId | Yes | Opaque, non-PII id for the client-side consent event. FairPath stores only its hash. | |
| addressConsentGranted | Yes | Must be true only after the homeowner explicitly consents to address lookup. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| redaction | Yes | |
| sourcesUsed | Yes | |
| directAnswer | Yes | |
| evidenceGaps | Yes | |
| countyCaveats | Yes | |
| confidenceLevel | Yes | |
| complianceFooter | Yes | |
| informationPosture | No | Transitional compatibility field: current broker responses include it, while older broker deployments may omit it during the coordinated rollout. |
| countyKnowledgeDensity | No | |
| nextAvailableFairPathAction | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses side effects beyond the annotations: it 'creates a private audit record' and 'may create or reuse short-lived scoped session and consent records.' It also states boundaries ('does not expose owner, payment, or raw county records') and that it does not 'change an external system,' which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by side effects and then non-goals. Every clause adds useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a rich input schema, an output schema, and four required consent-related parameters, the description is complete enough: it states the prerequisite (explicit consent), the side effects, and the data boundaries. There is nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to invoke it that is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only the 'homeowner-provided' nuance to address and the consent requirement, but does not explain the optional context object or the specific role of consentEvidenceId beyond what the schema states. This is an acceptable baseline given the schema's coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Look up a homeowner-provided address and return bounded property context', which clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools explain_evidence_packet and get_county_requirements. It is specific enough for an agent to know what check_property does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description names the core trigger ('homeowner-provided address') and an explicit prerequisite ('requires explicit address consent'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context for when to call it is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Explain the evidence categories FairPath can organize into a homeowner-reviewed property-tax evidence packet. This creates a private FairPath audit record but does not recommend a filing position, predict an outcome, or change an external system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| redaction | Yes | |
| sourcesUsed | Yes | |
| directAnswer | Yes | |
| evidenceGaps | Yes | |
| countyCaveats | Yes | |
| confidenceLevel | Yes | |
| complianceFooter | Yes | |
| informationPosture | No | Transitional compatibility field: current broker responses include it, while older broker deployments may omit it during the coordinated rollout. |
| countyKnowledgeDensity | No | |
| nextAvailableFairPathAction | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all 'false', which is low-information, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so well: it reveals the side effect of creating a private audit record and scopes what it does not affect (no external system changes, no recommendations or predictions). This adds genuine context beyond the annotations and shows no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false (creating a record is not read-only).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded in the first and the boundary conditions in the second. Zero wasted words; every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and an output schema present (which covers return-value details), the description adequately covers purpose and side effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly appears missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to document or compensate for in the schema, and no parameter gap exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Explain') and a specific resource ('evidence categories FairPath can organize into a homeowner-reviewed property-tax evidence packet'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings fairpath_check_property and fairpath_get_county_requirements, which perform different operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides scope exclusions ('does not recommend a filing position, predict an outcome, or change an external system'), which tell an agent what this tool is not for. However, it never explicitly states when to use it or routes to the sibling tools for the excluded needs, so usage guidance is mostly implied through negative space.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return public, CIE-backed county property-tax filing guidance and source metadata. This creates a private FairPath audit record but does not make a filing recommendation or change an external system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| countyId | Yes | FairPath county id in the form county_state, for example johnson_ks, cook_il, or harris_tx. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| redaction | Yes | |
| sourcesUsed | Yes | |
| directAnswer | Yes | |
| evidenceGaps | Yes | |
| countyCaveats | Yes | |
| confidenceLevel | Yes | |
| complianceFooter | Yes | |
| informationPosture | No | Transitional compatibility field: current broker responses include it, while older broker deployments may omit it during the coordinated rollout. |
| countyKnowledgeDensity | No | |
| nextAvailableFairPathAction | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing that the tool 'creates a private FairPath audit record' while not changing an external system. This clarifies the side-effect profile beyond what readOnlyHint:false alone implies, though it stops short of describing rate limits or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, and the second clarifies side effects. The most important action is front-loaded with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the description addresses purpose and side effects. It could be slightly richer in explaining when to prefer this over the siblings, but for a single-parameter tool it is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the countyId parameter is thoroughly described with format and examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return public, CIE-backed county property-tax filing guidance and source metadata.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on property checks and evidence packet explanations, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: this tool is for retrieving county-level filing requirements. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or pointers to the sibling tools, so an agent must rely on names and inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
fairpath_get_county_requirements1 field changedInput schema / properties / countyId / descriptionPrevious value: -"FairPath county id, such as harris_tx or collin_tx."New value: +"FairPath county id in the form county_state, for example johnson_ks, cook_il, or harris_tx."fairpath_check_propertyfairpath_explain_evidence_packetfairpath_get_county_requirements
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.