Zillow Remote MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return contents and mentions pagination, which is useful, but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, result caps, or whether pagination terminates. For a read-only search the safety profile is self-evident, but richer operational detail is missing.

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 core purpose, followed by filters, return fields, and use cases in a logical order. It is dense but not padded; a single long sentence carries each block cleanly, though the use-case list could be trimmed slightly.

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 32-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and summarizing the filter surface. It does not fully substitute for the absence of an output schema (no response shape/nesting detail) but covers enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every one of the 32 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Searches) and resource (Zillow for-sale/for-rent/sold listings), enumerates the filter families, and lists the returned fields. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the 'Zillow Property endpoint' it feeds and by scoping to Zillow rather than Redfin.

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?

Provides use-case contexts (market dashboards, rental pricing, lead lists, inventory tracking, collecting URLs for the Property endpoint), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or explicitly contrasts with the sibling hasdata_zillow_property_getPropertyDetails or hasdata_redfin_listing_getRealEstateListings.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the explanation burden. It states the tool 'Fetches' (read-only) and enumerates the data returned, plus notes the cost implication in the parameter description. It lacks explicit statements about error behavior or rate limits, but these are less critical for a simple GET.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear action, a list of returned data, and a use-case paragraph. It is slightly verbose due to the enumerated fields, but each sentence earns its place and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description adequately covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and the optional parameter behavior. It does not mention pagination (not needed for a single property) or error scenarios, but overall provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the URL can also be a zpid ('by URL/zpid'), which is not stated in the schema. It also echoes the optional email extraction behavior.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Zillow Property Details' and 'Fetches the full Zillow property page by URL/zpid'. It distinguishes from the sibling listing tool by focusing on a specific property rather than search/listings.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('Use for valuation models, CMA generation, investor underwriting, rental yield analysis') but does not directly contrast with the sibling tool (e.g., 'use this instead of listings when you have a specific URL'). Context is clear, but alternative guidance is implicit.

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