RE/MAX Studio 76 — Imóveis
Server Details
Acesso ao inventário de imóveis da RE/MAX Studio 76 — busque imóveis em São Paulo por tipo, bairro, preço, dormitórios, vagas e mais. 4 ferramentas: search_properties, get_property_details, list_neighborhoods, get_agency_info. Read-only, sem PII (LGPD compliant).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: agency info, property details, neighborhood listing, and property search. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_agency_info, get_property_details, list_neighborhoods, search_properties) using snake_case.
4 tools are well-scoped for a real estate agent MCP server, covering information retrieval, search, and details without being excessive or insufficient.
Core real estate operations (search, details, neighborhoods, agency info) are covered. Minor gap: no direct contact or scheduling tool, but contact info is provided.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_agency_infoAInspect
Retorna informações da RE/MAX Studio 76: contato, endereço, WhatsApp, horários.
Use este tool para incluir o contato da imobiliária na resposta ao usuário,
especialmente após apresentar imóveis de interesse.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses that the tool returns contact, address, WhatsApp, and hours. For a simple, parameterless retrieval tool, this is sufficient. It does not contradict any annotations (none present) and adds context about usage timing, but could mention that it is a safe read operation.
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: first explains what the tool returns, second advises when to use it. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No fluff.
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?
Given the low complexity (no parameters, simple retrieval) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It lists the key fields (contact, address, WhatsApp, hours), making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that by not introducing confusion.
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 it returns information about a specific agency (RE/MAX Studio 76) including contact, address, WhatsApp, and hours. The verb 'returns' and resource 'agency info' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings (get_property_details, list_neighborhoods, search_properties).
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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: to include agency contact in responses, especially after presenting properties of interest. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_property_detailsAInspect
Retorna detalhes completos de um imóvel específico.
Args:
property_id: ID do imóvel (obtido via search_properties, ex: "601301087-17")| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| property_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'completos' (complete) details but does not describe side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for the lack of return value explanation.
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 concise with only two short sentences plus an Args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the use of Portuguese may slightly reduce clarity for non-Portuguese agents, but overall it is well-structured.
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?
Given the tool has a single required parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the parameter usage and hints at the overall purpose. It does not need to detail the output since the schema handles that. The description is complete for this complexity level.
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 input schema only provides type and title for property_id. The description adds valuable context: it explains how to obtain the ID (via search_properties) and gives an example format. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well.
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 'Retorna detalhes completos de um imóvel específico' (returns full details of a specific property). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from siblings like search_properties (searching) and list_neighborhoods (listing neighborhoods).
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 mentions that property_id is obtained via search_properties, providing a clear context for when to use this tool. It gives an example format for the ID, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_neighborhoodsAInspect
Lista os bairros disponíveis no inventário, com contagem de imóveis e faixa de preço.
Útil para apresentar ao usuário as opções de bairro antes de filtrar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning count and price range, but lacks details on sorting, pagination, or data freshness. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 that efficiently convey purpose and usage. No redundant 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?
Given no parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it, though output format is left to the schema.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; it correctly focuses on the tool's output and usage.
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 tool lists neighborhoods with property count and price range. The verb 'list' and resource 'neighborhoods' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools (agency info, property details, search properties).
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 notes it is useful for presenting neighborhood options before filtering, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_propertiesAInspect
Busca imóveis no inventário da RE/MAX Studio 76.
Args:
tipo_transacao: Tipo de transação — "Venda" ou "Locação"
tipo_imovel: Tipo do imóvel — exemplos: "Apartamento", "Casa", "Cobertura",
"Studio", "Terreno", "Sala Comercial", "Galpão", "Casa Comercial"
bairro: Nome do bairro (parcial, sem acento também funciona) — ex: "Moema", "Pinheiros"
cidade: Cidade — padrão "São Paulo"
preco_min: Preço mínimo em Reais (R$)
preco_max: Preço máximo em Reais (R$)
dormitorios_min: Número mínimo de dormitórios
vagas_min: Número mínimo de vagas de garagem
area_min: Área mínima em m²
limit: Máximo de resultados (padrão 20, máximo 50)| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| bairro | No | ||
| cidade | No | ||
| area_min | No | ||
| preco_max | No | ||
| preco_min | No | ||
| vagas_min | No | ||
| tipo_imovel | No | ||
| tipo_transacao | No | ||
| dormitorios_min | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions search functionality but lacks details on rate limits, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or response format beyond parameter descriptions. No hints about side effects or safety.
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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by an Args section. It is relatively concise for 10 parameters, though some examples are repetitive (e.g., 'ex:'). The most important information is front-loaded.
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?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no annotations) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains parameter usage. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but for a search tool this is acceptable. Usage guidance is the main gap.
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 description provides thorough explanations for all 10 parameters, including Portuguese labels, expected values, examples, and defaults (e.g., 'tipo_transacao: Tipo de transação — "Venda" ou "Locação"'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates and adds significant meaning beyond the input 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Busca imóveis') and resource (inventory of RE/MAX Studio 76). It distinguishes from siblings like get_property_details (single property) and list_neighborhoods, and provides parameter examples that clarify its purpose.
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 implies use for searching properties with filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_property_details for specific property info, list_neighborhoods for locations). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!