AskRentAI

List Owners

list_owners

Read-onlyIdempotent

List property owners and the ownership map — who owns what, and what %.

Use for "who are the owners / investors", "who owns and what percentage", "which parks does have a stake in", or any ownership-breakdown question — essential for third-party / fee-managed portfolios where each property is held by multiple investor trusts/IRAs. Built on RM's OwnerList report (113) + the /Owners roster. Filter by owner_filter / property_filter (case-insensitive substrings); group_by is "owner" (default) or "property".

Note: owner DISTRIBUTION/payment and owner-STATEMENT reports require an RM user privilege the API account may not hold (owner-banking) — those are not exposed here. This tool covers the ownership roster and percentages.

``location`` (optional): a Rent Manager Location ID, a comma-separated
list, or ``"all"`` to run across every Location on this connection (see
``list_locations``). Blank = all Locations if the connection has several,
else its only Location. Output is labelled per Location; a Location that
can't be reached is listed as skipped. IDs (property, tenant, ...) belong
to one Location, so pass that Location when you filter by one.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`group_by`	No	owner
`location`	No
`owner_filter`	No
`property_filter`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / location

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Location",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds context the annotations cannot: the upstream report backing the data, the privilege limitation that hides related report families, per-Location output labelling, and that unreachable Locations are reported as skipped rather than failing silently.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then use cases, then caveats, then the location contract — a sensible order. The location paragraph is long and somewhat duplicated boilerplate across the tool family, but every clause (skipped Locations, per-Location labelling, blank default) conveys operational detail an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Four optional parameters, no output schema explanation needed beyond the ownership-map framing, and the description still covers grouping semantics, filter behavior, multi-Location scoping and failure handling. Nothing material is missing for a correct call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden and does: owner_filter/property_filter are case-insensitive substrings, group_by accepts 'owner' (default) or 'property' (an enum the schema does not declare), and location is spelled out as an ID, a comma-separated list, or 'all', with blank meaning all/only Location. It also warns that IDs belong to a single Location, so a Location must be passed when filtering by ID.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — lists property owners plus an ownership map with percentages. It is unambiguous against siblings because no other tool in the list covers ownership or investors, and it names its two data sources (OwnerList report 113 and the /Owners roster).

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('who are the owners / investors', 'who owns <park> and what percentage', 'which parks does <owner> have a stake in') and pins the target scenario (third-party/fee-managed portfolios with multiple investor trusts/IRAs). It also states an explicit when-not: owner distribution/payment and owner statement reports need an owner-banking privilege and are not exposed here.

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

All AskRentAI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?