Look up a ParcelLaunch listing that was already created, by its listing id. Returns the address, whether the parcel boundary was found, the 3D render status and the shareable links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_id | Yes | The listing id returned by create_3d_listing (e.g. "7291ac49b3"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return values but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or authorization requirements. A 3 is appropriate as it meets basic transparency but lacks additional behavioral context.
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 of 20 words, front-loading the purpose and listing key outputs without any wasted words.
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 covers all relevant return fields (address, boundary found, render status, shareable links), which is complete for a simple lookup 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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'listing_id' with a description. The tool description adds value by specifying that the ID is the one returned by create_3d_listing, which aids understanding beyond 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 looks up a listing by its ID and lists the returned fields (address, boundary found, render status, shareable links). It distinguishes from sibling tools create_3d_listing and get_pricing.
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 the tool is for listings that already exist, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus create_3d_listing or get_pricing. The sibling names provide clear differentiation, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: creating a 3D listing, retrieving an existing listing, and getting pricing information. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_3d_listing, get_listing, get_pricing), making it easy to predict functionality.
Three tools is appropriate for a focused service covering creation, retrieval, and pricing without unnecessary complexity.
The core workflow of creating and retrieving listings plus pricing is covered, but missing update/delete functionality for listing management is a minor gap.
