listing

beycome_signin_start

Account stage — send a one-time sign-in code (POST /auth/check-email).

beycome is passwordless — never ask the user for a password. This emails the user a 6-digit code (a second, different code also goes out by SMS; either one works). Ask the user for the code they received, then exchange it for the access_token with beycome_signin_verify.

Read the response body, not the HTTP status — the envelope's ok mirrors the HTTP status, and auth failures here still return 2xx. Always check data.success:

success: true (201, "Email sent") — code sent; ask the user for it.
success: false with "Email not found." (HTTP 200, ok: true) — no account for this email; run beycome_signup instead (signup also sends a code).
HTTP 422 (ok: false) — the email matched a secondary address; the body still matters: it hints the masked primary login email to use instead.

Codes stay valid for 30 minutes. Re-running this tool sends a fresh code and invalidates the old one. Rate-limited (5/min and 100/day per email) — never call it in a loop or as an automatic retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	User email address.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: passwordless authentication, 6-digit code sent via email and SMS, 30-minute validity, re-invalidation on re-run, and HTTP response nuances (e.g., 2xx on auth failures). This exceeds typical transparency.

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?

The description is well-structured with the action stated first, followed by key behavioral notes and response handling. It is longer but every sentence adds value; minor redundancy could be trimmed but overall it is efficient for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple response cases, rate limits, code expiration) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully explains the behavior, response interpretation, and error handling. An agent can correctly invoke and handle this tool without additional information.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The only parameter 'email' is already described in the schema as 'User email address.' The description adds behavioral context (email is used to send a code and check existence) but does not add new technical constraints or format details beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description explicitly states 'send a one-time sign-in code' and identifies the endpoint. It distinguishes this tool from 'beycome_signin_verify' which exchanges the code for a token, making the purpose clear and unique among siblings.

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?

The description provides detailed when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use for starting sign-in, if email not found use signup instead, and outlines steps based on response. It also mentions rate limits, explicitly warning against looping or automatic retries.

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

All listing tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct stage or action in the listing workflow: discovery, account, creation, questionnaire, and post-publish. There is no functional overlap—even pricing-adjacent tools like comps and estimate are clearly differentiated by their outputs.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the 'beycome_' prefix and lowercase underscores, but some are verbs (submit_property_link) while others are nouns (comps, offers). This minor inconsistency does not impair readability or agent selection.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools cover the full lifecycle of a real estate listing without feeling bloated or sparse. Each tool has a clear role, making the set well-scoped for the domain.

Completeness4/5

Core CRUD and lifecycle operations are present, including discovery, sign-up, listing creation, and post-publish communication. Missing are tools for updating or deleting a live listing, but the main workflow is supported.

Resources

Need Help?