NorthEast Deal Intel
Server Details
Commercial real estate intelligence for investors, brokers, and developers across 9 Northeast US states (CT, MA, NJ, NY, PA, RI, NH, VT, ME).
What it does
Every commercial listing is scored 1–10 using a 5-dimension framework: income yield, value-add potential, basis/location, exit/1031 suitability, and deal structure. Pull scored deals, comp-backed benchmarks, 1031 exchange candidates, and sell signals — all backed by 20,000+ active listings and 109,000+ closed sale comps.
Tools
**sear
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Tools have mostly distinct purposes: find_1031_candidates is specifically for 1031 exchange properties, while search_deals returns general scored deals. There is slight overlap between searching for deals generally and finding 1031 candidates, but descriptions clearly differentiate them. Other tools are distinct.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: find_1031_candidates, get_market_benchmarks, get_market_summary, score_deal, search_deals. The verbs (find, get, score, search) are all action-oriented and fit the domain.
Five tools is well-scoped for a commercial real estate intelligence server. Each tool serves a distinct function—searching, scoring, market data—without being too few or too many.
Core workflows are covered: searching deals (search_deals, find_1031_candidates), scoring a deal (score_deal), and market overview (get_market_benchmarks, get_market_summary). A minor gap is the lack of a tool to fetch full details of a specific deal by ID, but search_deals provides sufficient information for most use cases.
Available Tools
5 toolsfind_1031_candidatesBInspect
Find NNN and near-NNN replacement properties suitable for 1031 exchange buyers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | CT | |
| max_price | No | ||
| min_price | No | ||
| min_cap_rate | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool finds NNN and near-NNN properties but does not explain the algorithm, data source, or any limitations. The term 'near-NNN' is vague. This lacks behavioral transparency.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose without superfluous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, but the description provides no details on parameter meanings or return format. It assumes domain knowledge (1031 exchange, NNN) without clarification, leaving significant gaps for an agent unfamiliar with commercial real estate.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters or their semantics. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which may be insufficient for parameters like min_cap_rate (cap rate definition could be ambiguous). This is a significant gap.
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: finding NNN replacement properties for 1031 exchanges. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools that serve different functions.
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?
The description implies usage for 1031 exchange buyers, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_deals or score_deal. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_market_benchmarksBInspect
Get live cap rate and price/SF benchmarks by state and property type, backed by 109,000+ comps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | CT | |
| property_type | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'live' data freshness but omits any details about side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or non-destructive nature. For a data retrieval tool, this is minimal but acceptable as a baseline.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and result. It contains no extraneous words and efficiently communicates the tool's function.
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 tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return structure. It mentions 'benchmarks' and 'comps' but doesn't define the output format. With simple parameters, it is partially complete but lacks differentiation from sibling tools and return details.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only paraphrases the parameters ('by state and property type') without adding accepted values, formats, or examples. This provides minimal additional value over the schema titles and defaults.
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 retrieves 'live cap rate and price/SF benchmarks' using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('market benchmarks'). It uniquely adds credibility with 'backed by 109,000+ comps' and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_market_summary by focusing on benchmarks.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_summary or score_deal. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_market_summaryBInspect
Get a market summary for a state: active listings, avg cap rate, top submarkets, recent velocity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | CT |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states what the tool returns. Does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, side effects, or behavioral traits beyond output content.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose and content list. No unnecessary words; efficient.
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?
Simple tool with one param and no output schema. Description covers basic purpose and output fields, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. Adequate for minimal viability.
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 has one parameter 'state' with default 'CT' and 0% description coverage. The description adds that the summary is 'for a state', providing minimal context. Adequate but not detailed.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'market summary', and lists specific contents: active listings, avg cap rate, top submarkets, recent velocity. It distinguishes from siblings like get_market_benchmarks.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_market_benchmarks or find_1031_candidates. Does not specify prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
score_dealCInspect
Score a commercial real estate deal 1-10 using NDI's 5-dimension framework.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| cap_rate | No | ||
| asking_price | Yes | ||
| property_type | Yes | ||
| days_on_market | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific access. Minimal behavioral info.
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?
Single sentence, no waste. However, it sacrifices useful detail for brevity; a bit more context would improve without bloating.
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?
With 6 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain the framework, scoring criteria, or return format. Severely incomplete.
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 0%, and the description adds zero information about parameters—no explanation of what fields like cap_rate or state mean for scoring.
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 verb ('score') and resource ('commercial real estate deal') with a specific range (1-10) and framework (NDI's 5-dimension), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_deals or get_market_benchmarks.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings; only implied by the verb 'score' and framework mention. Lacks context like prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_dealsCInspect
Search scored commercial real estate listings. Returns deals scored 1-10 with cap rates, flags, and analyst takes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | CT | |
| max_price | No | ||
| min_score | No | ||
| min_cap_rate | No | ||
| property_type | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what is returned but lacks behavioral details such as side effects (non-destructive), rate limits, pagination, or ordering behavior. The agent cannot anticipate if searches are expensive or have state changes.
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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it could be more structured (e.g., listing what the tool does and what it returns). No wasted words, but could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers output fields but does not explain parameter usage, typical query patterns, or how results are sorted. The agent lacks sufficient context for effective 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (limit, state, max_price, etc.). The agent must infer meaning from names and defaults without any semantic guidance.
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 searches for scored commercial real estate listings and specifies the returned fields (scores 1-10, cap rates, flags, analyst takes). It distinguishes from siblings like find_1031_candidates or score_deal by focusing on searching multiple listings with scoring.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., find_1031_candidates, get_market_benchmarks). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or best use cases.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!