MappaIQ

Update pin

update_comp

Destructive

Update properties of a single existing comp/waypoint

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The comp ID to update
`date`	No
`name`	No
`type`	No	Record type: comp \| listing \| prospecting \| client
`buyer`	No
`notes`	No
`price`	No
`seller`	No
`zoning`	No
`acreage`	No
`address`	No
`context`	Yes	Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
`llm_model`	Yes	The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.
`offerType`	No	Offer type of a listing
`listingStage`	No	Listing stage: active \| under_contract \| withdrawn. Closing is not a stage: a closed listing becomes type comp.
`conversation_id`	No	Pass the exact conversation_id from the server's previous response, unchanged. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it. Keep passing the same conversation_id for the rest of the conversation, including after later user messages or on a different task; do not reset it when the user starts a new request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing behavioral beyond the annotations: it does not say whether this is a partial merge (only supplied fields changed) or a full replacement that clears omitted fields — a critical distinction for a 16-parameter destructive update. Given the annotations do the safety work, this is a modest gap, but the merge-vs-replace semantics are left entirely unstated.

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?

A single compact sentence with no padding, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than ideal conciseness for a tool of this complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive 16-parameter mutation tool with 44% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits update semantics, the effect of omitted fields, and any signal about partial vs. whole-record updates, leaving the agent materially underinformed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 44%, so most of the 16 parameters (date, name, buyer, notes, price, seller, zoning, acreage, address) carry no documented meaning in either the schema or the description. The description adds zero parameter-level information, leaving a large compensating burden unmet.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update properties of a single existing comp/waypoint'), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with bulk_update_comps. The title 'Update pin' and the body's 'comp/waypoint' terminology are inconsistent, which slightly muddies the resource identity, but the core purpose is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as bulk_update_comps (for multiple records) or update_listing (for listings). The agent gets the purpose but must infer the selection conditions from sibling names alone.

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

All MappaIQ tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?