Skip to main content
Glama

korea-realty

by app.sallim

[유료] 서울 재개발·재건축 사업장

realty_redevelopment
Read-onlyIdempotent

[유료] 서울시 정비사업(재개발·재건축·가로주택 등) 사업장 목록 — 사업명·유형· 진행 단계·위치. "○○구 재개발 어디까지 진행됐어?"류 질문용.

**커버리지는 서울 한정**(정보몽땅 원천) — 타 시도는 이 도구로 답할 수 없다고 밝혀라.
세대수·준공예정은 원천 목록이 제공하지 않아 null이다(지어내지 말 것). 진행 단계
필터는 미지원 — 결과의 stage 필드(한글: 조합설립인가·관리처분인가 등)로 판별하라.
재건축 **유망도 점수**는 이 도구가 아니라 realty_reconstruction이 담당하고,
"지금 사면 조합원 지위 승계돼?"는 realty_member_transfer_check(무료)가 담당한다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo(허용 범위 1~50)
offsetNo페이지네이션 오프셋
sigunguNo시군구 (예: 강남구). 비우면 서울 전체
project_typeNoreconstruction=재건축, housing_redevelopment=재개발(주택정비형), urban_redevelopment=재개발(도시정비형), street_housing=가로주택정비, small_reconstruction=소규모재건축, small_redevelopment=소규모재개발, regional_housing=지역주택, remodeling=리모델링. 비우면 전체

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds important behavioral constraints: Seoul-only coverage, source limitations, null fields that must not be invented, no stage filter support, and a paid service marker. It also instructs the agent to derive progression from the stage field rather than assume a filter parameter.

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 dense but purposefully structured: main purpose first, followed by coverage limitations, null-field warnings, filter behavior, and sibling routing. Some repetition of the paid marker and the warning not to invent null data makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary, but the length is justified by the tool’s complexity and the risk of hallucinated data.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of signaling result semantics. It names the core output fields, describes null behavior, and gives the stage field as the discriminator. It does not fully enumerate every response field or pagination detail, but it provides enough context for a 4-optional-parameter list tool.

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 schema already covers all 4 parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by warning that 진행 단계 filtering is not supported and must be determined from the stage output field, and by reinforcing the sigungu-based district example in the usage question.

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 names the resource: a list of Seoul 정비사업 sites (재개발·재건축·가로주택) with the key fields 사업명·유형·진행 단계·위치. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by stating that 유망도 점수 belongs to realty_reconstruction and 조합원 지위 승계 belongs to realty_member_transfer_check.

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?

The description provides an explicit usage pattern: “○○구 재개발 어디까지 진행됐어?” It also states clear exclusions: non-Seoul areas cannot be answered with this tool, and redevelopment potential or membership succession questions should be routed to the named sibling tools.

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

All korea-realty toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The set has very explicit cross-tool guidance and each tool is often given a specific 'role', but there are still many overlapping clusters: auction search vs auction list vs auction detail, regional price bands vs price stats vs rankings, and court auction rate vs public auction rate. The descriptions reduce misselection, but with 51 tools including pairs like `fetch` and `realty_get_auction_case`, confusion is still likely for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clean `realty_` prefix and use consistent snake_case noun-phrases or verb-noun patterns, e.g. `realty_search_auctions`, `realty_get_auction_case`, `realty_presale_cost`. The exceptions are the generic `fetch`, `search`, and `report_issue`, which break the uniform prefixed convention but are only a small minor deviation from an otherwise consistent naming system.

Tool Count1/5

51 tools far exceeds the recommended threshold, even for a deliberately broad real-estate area; it is effectively an extreme number for a single MCP server. The tool count becomes the hardest usability problem, since agents must handle many tightly related micro-tools instead of interacting with a smaller, more manageable surface.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers an impressively complete range: auction and public-auction workflows, apartment and non-apartment market, presale/cheongyak processes, tax and loan rules, subscription scoring, redevelopment, demographics, supply, POI, and even a reporting and routing tool. Boundaries and unsupported cases are explicitly documented, so there are no major obvious dead ends.

Resources