Get the complete RERA-verified track record of any builder in Bangalore. Use this when the user asks about a builder's credibility, history, or total projects. Returns all registered projects with status and possession dates — the only reliable way to verify a builder's track record in Karnataka.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| builder_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "get_builder_projectsOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content beyond that: it returns all registered projects with status and possession dates, and it is scoped to Karnataka/Bangalore registrations. It omits any note on rate limits or what happens with an unknown builder name.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then when to use it, then what it returns. The closing claim 'the only reliable way to verify a builder's track record' is promotional filler rather than operational 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 single-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (registered projects with status and possession dates) and the domain scope. The main gap is the absence of any input format guidance.
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?
There is a single required parameter, builder_name, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It never clarifies the expected format (exact registered name vs. partial match, casing, aliases), which is a real ambiguity for a lookup tool.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the complete RERA-verified track record of any builder'), and the builder-centric scope clearly separates it from project-oriented siblings like get_project and search_projects. An agent can route without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks about a builder's credibility, history, or total projects', which gives a clear trigger condition. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an exclusion case, so it is strong but not complete.
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.