Find published ATA building/complex profiles by destination, neighborhood, tag, amenity, or free-text. Use this for questions about buildings, condo towers, complexes, gated communities, marina developments, or neighborhoods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| query | No | Building name, neighborhood, city, or text query. | |
| amenities | No | ||
| maxResults | No | ||
| neighborhood | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds context about the data source ('published ATA building/complex profiles') but doesn't discuss any other behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits.
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, front-loaded with purpose and usage. No wasted words; the structure is efficient and clear.
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 lack of output schema and 6 parameters, the description is adequate for a search tool but could be more complete by mentioning what the response contains (e.g., building IDs, names) or any result limits.
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?
With only 17% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping search dimensions (destination, neighborhood, tag, amenity, free-text) to parameters, but it does not detail individual parameters or formats.
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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'published ATA building/complex profiles' and lists multiple search dimensions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_building_details or search_property_catalog.
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 provides clear usage context ('Use this for questions about buildings...') but does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools for specific functions, such as get_building_details for detailed info on a single building.
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.
Multiple search tools (search_buildings, search_property_catalog, search_network_availability) and detail tools (get_building_details, get_property_details, get_stays_in_building) have overlapping boundaries, though descriptions clarify date and availability distinctions. The verification/handoff tools are more clearly separated but still numerous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_*, get_*, search_*, start_*, verify_*). There are no mixed casing conventions or vague generic verbs, making the set predictable and easy to scan.
With 22 tools, the server is on the heavy end of a typical MCP scope, though each tool has a defined purpose. Several narrow status and discovery helpers inflate the count, but the overall count is not yet extreme.
The booking lifecycle is incomplete: create_quote and create_provisional_booking exist, but there is no cancel, update, or explicit payment action, and get_reservation_status explicitly cannot change or cancel a reservation. Search and verification are well covered, but missing booking mutations will cause agent dead ends.