Redfin Remote MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are paginated, and a street-address or building-name input collapses to a single property card where the `type` parameter no longer applies. Auth and rate-limit behavior are not mentioned, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and mode, then details. The return-field enumeration is long, but it substitutes for a missing output schema, so it earns its space. Slight density, but no redundant sentences.

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?

For a 59-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, input modes, result-shape variation, returned fields, and the sibling relationship. Nothing essential to a correct call is left unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already spells out every filter and enum, so baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by documenting a semantic rule the schema never states: that required `type` is ignored for address/building searches, plus the set of location formats `keyword` truly accepts.

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?

States a precise verb+resource (search for-sale/for-rent/sold Redfin listings) and its scope (pagination, location input forms). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling by noting that deep-dive details come from the Redfin Property endpoint, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (market research, agent lead gen, price/DOM trend analysis) and names the downstream alternative for detail lookups. It also flags the special case where an address/building input returns a single card rather than a list. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when Y' exclusion statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it fetches the full page for a given URL and lists the payload contents, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes for invalid URLs.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence and keeps the payload enumeration and use cases compact. The field list is long but each item is a distinct returned attribute, so it earns its place; only marginal trimming would improve it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly via the field enumeration. For a read-only, single-parameter fetch the coverage is solid; only the lack of any error/edge-case guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the required url. The description reinforces that the input is a Redfin property URL and must be valid, but adds no format examples or error behavior beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch the full Redfin property page by URL) and enumerates the returned data, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling listing-search tool, which returns listings rather than a single URL-addressable property.

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?

It names concrete usage contexts (CMA reports, investor due-diligence, valuation models, listing enrichment, buyer-assistant agents), which tells the agent when this tool is the right fit. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names the sibling listing tool as the alternative for discovery-style queries, so routing is left partly to inference.

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