Cook County / Chicago property by address or PIN: sales, permits, assessments, comps. Pay via x402.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.8/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: searching by address, getting a parcel record, obtaining a full property dossier, finding comparable sales, and providing a free sample. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Tool names follow a descriptive verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_chicago_property_by_address, get_cook_county_parcel). The prefix style is consistent (search_, get_, find_) but 'get_free_sample' deviates slightly by including an adjective. Overall, the naming is clear and predictable.
With 5 tools, the set is compact and covers essential operations: search, parcel retrieval, full dossier, comps, and a free sample. Each tool serves a necessary function without being excessive or too few for the domain.
The tool set covers the core workflow: address resolution, parcel lookup, comprehensive property details with permits and sales, and comparable sales. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a search by PIN or other criteria, but the free sample and clear chaining (search → get) provide good coverage for most use cases.
find_chicago_comparable_salesARecent arm's-length comparable sales (comps) in the same Cook County assessor neighborhood and property class as the given PIN, with an implied low/median/high price range — a derived, lightweight automated valuation you won't get from a raw open-data query. Costs $0.10 per call (x402, USDC) — the highest-value route; try get_free_sample first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin | Yes | 10- or 14-digit Cook County PIN (digits; dashes allowed, e.g. 14-08-120-017-0000). If you only have a street address, call search_chicago_property_by_address first. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it uses arm's-length comps, derives an automated valuation, and costs $0.10 per call. No contradictions with annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive).
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 two compact sentences plus a cost note. Every sentence adds value: purpose first, then pricing and usage hint. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 lightweight tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core output (comps with low/median/high range). Minor gap: exact output structure (list vs. single object) not specified, but adequate given context.
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 parameter description already explains the PIN format and fallback for addresses. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema.
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 finds recent arm's-length comparable sales with an implied price range, and distinguishes it from raw open-data queries. It also references a sibling tool (get_free_sample) and addresses the alternative for address-based lookup.
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?
Explicitly suggests trying get_free_sample first and directs users lacking a PIN to search_chicago_property_by_address. This provides clear when-to-use and alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_cook_county_parcelACook County, IL parcel record (address, assessor class, township, neighborhood, ward, schools, lat/lon) for a 10- or 14-digit PIN. Costs $0.01 per call (x402, USDC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin | Yes | 10- or 14-digit Cook County PIN (digits; dashes allowed, e.g. 14-08-120-017-0000). If you only have a street address, call search_chicago_property_by_address first. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by noting cost, PIN format specifics, and that it's for Cook County, IL. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and output fields, second sentence adds cost and usage guidance. Information 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?
For a tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers input format, output fields, cost, and provides an alternative. Perfectly adequate for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100% with a description for the pin parameter. The description adds format details (dashes allowed, example) and context (10- or 14-digit), going beyond the schema. Also mentions the sibling tool for address lookup.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves a Cook County parcel record for a 10- or 14-digit PIN, listing specific fields (address, assessor class, township, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_chicago_property_by_address which handles addresses.
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?
Explicitly mentions cost ($0.01 per call) and provides an alternative when the user has a street address (search_chicago_property_by_address). No explicit when-not but the alternative covers a key scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_cook_county_property_dossierAFull Cook County / Chicago property dossier (parcel basics, recorded sales & deed history, building permits, property-tax assessment history, location context) for a PIN — the one-call due-diligence record. Permits are LINKED to the PIN here (the raw permit open-data has no PIN; links are derived by address + geo match), so this is a finished record you can't reproduce with raw open-data queries. Costs $0.03 per call (x402, USDC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin | Yes | 10- or 14-digit Cook County PIN (digits; dashes allowed, e.g. 14-08-120-017-0000). If you only have a street address, call search_chicago_property_by_address first. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only, open-world, idempotent. The description adds value by explaining that permits are derived via address+geo matching (a key behavioral trait), that the record is 'finished' and can't be reproduced from raw open data, and that each call costs money. No contradictions.
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 a single sentence (with semicolons) plus a note. It front-loads the core output components and critical caveats. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the return types (parcel basics, sales, deeds, permits, tax, location). It also covers cost, data provenance, and links to sibling tools for address resolution. A well-rounded description for a property tool.
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% for the single parameter 'pin'. The description adds practical context: the pattern, example format, and alternative workflow when only an address is available. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.
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 it provides a 'full Cook County / Chicago property dossier' including specific components (parcel basics, sales, deeds, permits, tax, location). It distinguishes from sibling get_cook_county_parcel by emphasizing it's a comprehensive 'one-call due-diligence record' with linked permits not reproducible from raw data.
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?
Explicitly tells agents this is the tool to use when they have a PIN and need a complete property record. It provides guidance on prerequisites: 'if you only have a street address, call search_chicago_property_by_address first.' It also mentions cost implications ($0.03 per call), helping agents make cost-aware decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_free_sampleAFREE ($0, no payment): a fixed, representative example of every paid response shape (search, parcel, dossier, comps). Call this FIRST to validate the data structure and quality before spending anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses free, no payment, fixed representative example. Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent; description adds value by specifying the purpose and cost implications.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE ($0, no payment)', no wasted words. Every part adds value.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description mentions the included response shapes (search, parcel, dossier, comps). For a free sample tool, this is sufficient for agents to understand what to expect.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds critical context about the tool's purpose and return shape, which is valuable beyond the empty schema.
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?
Clearly states it provides a free sample of paid response shapes (search, parcel, dossier, comps). Distinguishes from sibling paid tools by being free and a representative example.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this FIRST to validate the data structure and quality before spending anything', providing clear when-to-use guidance and implying when-not-to (actual data retrieval).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_chicago_property_by_addressAResolve a Cook County / Chicago street address (full or partial) to its parcel PIN(s) — ranked candidates with address, city, ZIP, and match score. Call this FIRST when you have an address but not a PIN, then pass a returned pin to get_cook_county_parcel / get_cook_county_property_dossier / find_chicago_comparable_sales. FREE — no payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Full or partial Cook County / Chicago street address, e.g. '1 E 113th St'. Minimum 4 characters. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds that it returns ranked candidates with address, city, ZIP, and match score, and that it's free. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences: first explains purpose, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with core functionality.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description explains return content: ranked candidates with address, city, ZIP, and match score. It also provides workflow context. Complete for a simple search tool.
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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds an example address 'e.g. '1 E 113th St'' which provides additional context beyond the schema description, justifying a 4.
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 resolves a Chicago address to parcel PIN(s) and returns ranked candidates. It distinguishes itself from siblings which take a PIN as input, thus providing a specific verb-resource pair.
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?
Explicitly states 'Call this FIRST when you have an address but not a PIN, then pass a returned pin to...', giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with alternative tools named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
