Skip to main content
Glama

Match Listing to Parcel

assetfy_match_listing_to_parcel
Read-onlyIdempotent

Match a real estate listing to the most plausible cadastral parcel and return the full development fact sheet for it. Give either a listing_url or exposé facts (zip, plot area, living area, floors, building type, street address). If the exposé states a street address, the tool resolves it first and verifies the house number against the cadastral building address; this also works when the stated plot area combines several parcels. Otherwise it searches parcels with that plot area inside the ZIP polygon — exact area first, then a small tolerance — and compares candidate buildings when needed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "assetfy_match_listing_to_parcel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNo
lonNo
zipNo
floorsNoNumber of floors / Etagen from the exposé.
price_eurNoAsking price, used for the land value comparison.
listing_urlNoPlatform URL. Coordinates, plot area and living area are taken from the listing when present.
plot_area_m2NoPlot area from the exposé, matched exactly against the cadastre.
building_typeNoe.g. Einfamilienhaus, EFH, Mehrfamilienhaus, unbebaut.
garden_area_m2NoGarden area from the exposé, if stated.
living_area_m2NoLiving area from the exposé, used for the building plausibility check.
street_addressNoStreet address of the property as stated in the exposé, e.g. "Wiesenstraße 6, 41515 Grevenbroich". Resolved and checked against the cadastral building address before searching by plot area. Only the address — not the exposé text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / description
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Exposé description text; a stated street address is resolved before searching by plot area.",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedInput schema / properties / location
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Known location name if no coordinates are available.",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • addedInput schema / properties / street_address
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Street address of the property as stated in the exposé, e.g. \"Wiesenstraße 6, 41515 Grevenbroich\". Resolved and checked against the cadastral building address before searching by plot area. Only the address — not the exposé text.",
      +  "maxLength": 200,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: address resolution being attempted first, house-number verification against the cadastral building address, the multi-parcel plot area case, and the exact-area-then-tolerance search order.

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?

Three sentences, purpose and output front-loaded, then input modes, then resolution logic. Dense but every clause carries operational information; minor redundancy in re-listing exposé fields.

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?

For an 11-parameter, no-output-schema tool it covers inputs, resolution ordering and the return artifact ('full development fact sheet'). Gaps remain: no match failure behavior, no mention of tolerance magnitude, and no guidance on the lat/lon and price_eur parameters despite 0 required fields.

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?

Schema coverage is 73%, so most parameters are documented structurally. The description goes further by grouping inputs (listing_url vs exposé facts: zip, plot area, living area, floors, building type, street address) and explaining what street_address triggers, which is meaning beyond the schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Match a real estate listing to the most plausible cadastral parcel' and states the return ('full development fact sheet'). It is distinguishable from search-by-area siblings, but it never differentiates itself from the close sibling assetfy_resolve_listing_parcel, which likely overlaps in intent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly tells the agent which inputs to supply ('Give either a listing_url or exposé facts') and describes the resolution path taken depending on whether a street address is present. It gives operating context but no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.