Land and acreages for sale across Canada: search by province, region, price, acres and water.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_listing retrieves a single listing by id or URL, list_regions returns province/region geography and aggregate stats, and search_land performs filtered listing searches. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause misselection.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_listing, list_regions, search_land. The naming is predictable and readable.
Three tools are well-scoped for a read-only land listing service: one detail lookup, one geography/reference lookup, and one search operation. No redundant or extraneous tools are present.
The surface covers the key read workflows: retrieving a listing, listing regions, and searching filtered listings. A minor gap is that search_land returns at most 20 listings with no explicit pagination or sorting controls, so exhaustive browsing requires manual filter refinement.
One AcreScout listing by its id (8 hex characters, as in https://acrescout.ca/#l=) or its acrescout.ca/land/... page URL: price, size, price per acre, place, how exact the map point is, water, value check, listed date and price cuts, with links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content (price, size, price-per-acre, place, map-point precision, water, value check, listed date, price cuts, links), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It omits auth requirements, not-found/error behavior, and the id-vs-url precedence.
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?
One front-loaded sentence: purpose and lookup keys first, then the field list. The trailing field enumeration is long but each item earns its place given there is no output schema.
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 low-complexity single-record read with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the key formats and return contents, which is most of what an agent needs. The gap is the 0-required-params ambiguity (can it be called with neither/both, and which wins), left unaddressed.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both params. It does explain the id format (8 hex characters with a concrete example) and characterizes the url param (acrescout.ca/land/... page URL), adding real value. It does not clarify whether one or both are required, which is the more likely failure mode.
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 resource (one AcreScout listing) and the two lookup keys (8-hex id or page URL), and the singular scope clearly separates it from list_regions and search_land without opening any 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?
Usage is implied by the singular 'one listing by its id' framing, which suggests a direct lookup rather than a browse/search. However there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs search_land (e.g., 'use after resolving an id from search results') and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Canadian provinces (and the territories) with land for sale on AcreScout, each with its listing count, median asking price, median asking price per acre of bare land 10+ acres, and its regions (counties, regional districts, Quebec admin regions) with their listing counts. Use a region's slug in search_land.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| province | No | Two-letter code (BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC, NB, NS, PE, NL) or TERR for the territories; omit for all. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content in detail (listing counts, median asking price, median price per acre for bare land 10+ acres, sub-regions), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether results are cached/static.
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?
One dense sentence front-loads the resource and then enumerates the payload, followed by a short routing hint. Every clause conveys return-value information that is otherwise undocumented, so the length is earned, though the enumerated median-price clauses make it slightly hard to scan.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does so thoroughly for a simple read-only list tool. The main gap is the absence of any when-to-use framing relative to its two siblings.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'province' parameter is fully documented in the schema (codes, TERR, omit-for-all). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names the specific resource (Canadian provinces/territories with land for sale on AcreScout) and enumerates exactly what each entry carries, so an agent knows this is a reference/list tool rather than a search tool. It is distinguishable from search_land via the closing routing hint, though the verb 'list' itself is only implied by the tool name.
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 only usage guidance is 'Use a region's slug in search_land', which explains the downstream workflow but not when to call list_regions versus get_listing or search_land. Usage is implied (call this to discover slugs/regions) rather than stated with conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Land and acreages for sale in one Canadian province, from Kijiji (realtor listings), Centris and Zillow ads, refreshed several times a day. Filters on region, price, acreage, water frontage, AcreScout's value check and how recently it was listed. Returns at most 20 listings with price, acres, price per acre, place, water, value check, listed date and links to the AcreScout listing page and the original ad.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Default price_per_acre (cheapest first). | |
| limit | No | Default 10. | |
| water | No | Only land with this frontage (any: ocean, lake, river or creek). | |
| region | No | A region slug from list_regions, e.g. kings-county. | |
| province | Yes | Two-letter code (BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC, NB, NS, PE, NL) or TERR. | |
| max_acres | No | ||
| max_price | No | CAD | |
| min_acres | No | ||
| min_price | No | CAD | |
| below_market | No | Only listings AcreScout's value check rates more than 25% below similar-sized land nearby. | |
| listed_within_days | No | Only listings put up (or first seen by AcreScout) this recently. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: data is refreshed several times a day, results are capped at 20, and the exact fields returned are enumerated. It omits auth needs, rate limits, and any pagination beyond the hard cap, but the freshness and cap disclosures are substantive.
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 tightly written sentences: the first establishes scope and provenance, the second covers filtering and return contents. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it searches, where data comes from) 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?
With 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating returned fields and result limits. Gaps remain around sort behavior, whether results are paginable beyond the cap, and how region slugs are obtained, but the core contract is complete.
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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters, and the description largely restates those filter categories (region, price, acreage, water frontage, value check, recency) rather than adding syntax or semantics. The one additive detail is the 20-listing cap, which reinforces the limit maximum.
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 (land/acreage listings for sale) and scopes it to a single Canadian province, naming the actual ad sources (Kijiji, Centris, Zillow). This clearly separates it from get_listing (one listing) and list_regions (region lookup) without needing their schemas.
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 the search use case through its filter list, but never explicitly says when to use this versus get_listing or list_regions, nor states prerequisites such as needing a region slug from list_regions. Usage is inferable but not routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_listinglist_regionssearch_landFind Canadian farms that sell direct — what they grow and raise, where, when, and at what price.
Search Canadian hunting and fishing outfitters, check availability, and send price requests.
Realtor.ca listings for sale or rent, the agent directory, and Kijiji rentals. Pay per result.
Search UK houses with land and manage your private saved-homes board.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
