HouseFile UK property licensing checker

Which councils are covered

licensing_coverage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Which councils HouseFile’s records cover: each council with published schemes, with how many, how many are in force and when they were last verified, and the councils checked and found to run none. Use it to tell the user honestly whether their area is covered, and list_council_schemes for one council’s detail.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes
`councils`	Yes	Councils with published schemes. Councils checked and found to run none are in checked_no_scheme_councils
`council_count`	Yes	Every council the records cover, with schemes or checked and found to run none
`housefile_url`	Yes
`councils_with_schemes`	Yes
`published_scheme_count`	Yes
`checked_no_scheme_count`	Yes
`most_recent_verification`	Yes
`checked_no_scheme_councils`	Yes	Short names of the councils a person checked and found to run no additional or selective scheme. list_council_schemes gives the date

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / checked_no_scheme_councils

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Short names of the councils a person checked and found to run no additional or selective scheme. list_council_schemes gives the date",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / checked_no_scheme_count
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / council_count / description

Added value: +"Every council the records cover, with schemes or checked and found to run none"

addedOutput schema / properties / councils / description

Added value: +"Councils with published schemes. Councils checked and found to run none are in checked_no_scheme_councils"

removedOutput schema / properties / councils / items / properties / checked_no_scheme
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / councils / items / properties / country
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / councils / items / properties / gss_code
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / councils / items / properties / housefile_url
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / councils / items / properties / name / description

Added value: +"The council’s short name, as on HouseFile’s pages. list_council_schemes takes it as it is"

changedOutput schema / properties / councils / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "gss_code",
-  "country",
-  "published_schemes",
-  "in_force",
-  "checked_no_scheme",
-  "last_verified",
-  "housefile_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "published_schemes",
+  "in_force",
+  "last_verified"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / councils_with_schemes
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "councils",
-  "council_count",
-  "published_scheme_count",
-  "most_recent_verification",
-  "note",
-  "housefile_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "councils",
+  "checked_no_scheme_councils",
+  "council_count",
+  "councils_with_schemes",
+  "checked_no_scheme_count",
+  "published_scheme_count",
+  "most_recent_verification",
+  "note",
+  "housefile_url"
+]

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive. Beyond that, the description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: the result includes negative findings (councils checked and found to run none), which prevents an agent from misreading absence as no data. It does not note result size or how stale 'last verified' can get, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then the usage rule. The first sentence is a long compound clause listing the output fields, which is dense on first read but every element earns its place.

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-value explanation is not required; the description instead supplies scope and the sibling routing. What is missing is minor: no hint about dataset granularity (UK councils only?) or how frequently verification runs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies no filtering is possible and that the whole coverage set is returned.

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 the specific resource (council licensing coverage) and enumerates exactly what the result contains: per-council counts, in-force counts, last-verified dates, and councils checked with no schemes. This is clearly differentiated from list_council_schemes, which is called out as the per-council detail view.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (to answer whether the user's area is covered) and names the alternative (list_council_schemes) for the deeper per-council case. The routing decision is fully specified.

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

All HouseFile UK property licensing checker tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?