Parcel-level statutory planning for a specific building/parcel. Resolves a gush + helka (block + parcel) to its location via the govmap cadastre, then returns the iplan Xplan plans covering that exact parcel (status, deposit/approval dates, committees). Use for a single building that is not necessarily inside a declared compound.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gush | Yes | Block number (גוש). | |
| helka | Yes | Parcel number (חלקה). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the underlying resolution via 'govmap cadastre' and the returned fields (status, dates, committees), but does not state safety (read-only), failure behavior for invalid gush/helka, or other operational traits.
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: the first delivers the core workflow, the second the usage guidance. No filler or repetition of schema property names.
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 2-parameter lookup with no output schema, it explains the return contents (status, deposit/approval dates, committees) and the use case, which is largely sufficient. It omits edge cases (e.g., no plans found, invalid block/parcel) but those are minor given the siblings provide a clear selection context.
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 coverage is 100% with basic labels ('Block number', 'Parcel number'). The description adds meaning by explaining that gush+helka are resolved together via the cadastre to locate the parcel, which clarifies the combined semantic role beyond the schema.
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 ('resolves' and 'returns') with a precise resource: iplan Xplan plans covering an exact parcel. It also distinguishes itself from compound-focused siblings by noting it is for 'a single building that is not necessarily inside a declared compound.'
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 final sentence gives clear when-to-use context ('Use for a single building that is not necessarily inside a declared compound'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, but the compound exclusion implies a boundary against compound-level siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct lookups: search, detail, methodology, plan status, registry, recent changes, and top-ranked opportunities. There is some overlap in statutory status returns between get_compound_details, urban_renewal_registry, and planning_status_by_plan, but their descriptions clarify the source and scope enough to avoid major confusion.
The naming mixes verb-led patterns like get_, list_, and search_ with noun-style names like planning_status_by_plan and urban_renewal_registry. It is still readable and mostly predictable, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun convention makes the pattern less consistent.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a domain-specific analyzer server. Each tool addresses a distinct user need, and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.
The surface covers core analysis workflows: searching, retrieving detailed compound data, checking official registry status, inspecting live plan status, seeing recent statutory changes, and finding top mispriced opportunities. Minor gaps exist—like a general list/filter tool or historical comparison—but agents can work around them.