Skip to main content
Glama

parcel-edge

by com.dropwatchhq

overassessment_leads

Scored, dated, deadline-stamped COMMERCIAL property-tax over-assessment leads. Each lead is a parcel whose assessor implied-market value EXCEEDS its most recent CLEAN arm's-length sale price — a candidate over-payment a contingency tax-appeal firm pursues. Counties that publish a public sale price: cook-il, allegheny-pa, philadelphia-pa, king-wa, maricopa-az. (Texas/Georgia counties are non-disclosure — over-assessment is an honest null there; use exemption_flags instead.) Candidates from PUBLIC data; the firm confirms valuation. Not legal/valuation advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax leads (default 25).
countyNoCounty (default cook-il).
minTierNoMin confidence tier (default high).
minRatioNoMin over-assessment ratio (default 1.15).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses data source (public data), confirmation by firm, and disclaimer (not legal advice). It lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only query tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Concise and front-loaded: the first sentence captures the core. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. Efficient use of space.

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 a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the lead concept, data limitations, and alternative tools. It could include output format details, but the mention of 'scored, dated, deadline-stamped' provides sufficient context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The tool description adds context about county types but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool returns 'Scored, dated, deadline-stamped COMMERCIAL property-tax over-assessment leads' with a specific condition (assessor value exceeds sale price). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'exemption_flags' by noting its use in non-disclosure counties.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (counties publishing sale prices) and when-not-to-use (Texas/Georgia non-disclosure counties, with alternative suggested: exemption_flags). This is exemplary guidance.

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

All parcel-edge toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of property data: permit windows, stalled projects, exemption flags, lien reports, overassessment leads (commercial vs single parcel), and county metadata. The descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes, with no functional overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use a consistent underscore_case pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., construction_window_leads, exemption_flags). No mixed conventions or cryptic abbreviations are present.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools provide a well-scoped set for the server's purpose (property analytics for various stakeholders). Neither too few nor too many—each tool serves a clear, distinct function.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows for permit tracking, exemption auditing, lien analysis, and overassessment detection. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general property detail lookup), but the server seems intentionally focused on lead generation and flagged issues.

Resources