Chicago demolition and reclaimed-brick leads, pricing, and a human-confirmed Daily Drop handoff.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: aggregate overview vs. specific search, product information vs. checkout handoff. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other, eliminating any ambiguity about which tool to use.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_chicago_reuse_brief, get_salvage_signal_offer, get_subscription_handoff, and search_salvage_signals. This makes the naming predictable and easy to navigate.
With only 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—covering overview, search, product facts, and subscription path—without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The tool surface fully covers the domain: aggregate trends, specific permit searches, subscription details, and the checkout handoff. There are no obvious gaps that would cause agent failures.
Use for a current Chicago teardown-to-reuse overview, aggregate trends, and a ranked watch list with source and safety context. For a material- or urgency-filtered candidate list, use search_salvage_signals instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | |
| market | Yes | |
| safety | Yes | |
| source | Yes | |
| summary | Yes | |
| dataMode | Yes | |
| watchList | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds specific output context (aggregate trends, ranked watch list, source and safety context) without 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, front-loaded with purpose and alternative, no 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?
Tool has no parameters, good annotations, and description clearly states purpose and when to use alternatives; fully adequate for an agent.
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, so parameter semantics are trivial; description provides sufficient context beyond 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?
Description explicitly states the tool provides a Chicago teardown-to-reuse overview, aggregate trends, and a ranked watch list with source and safety context, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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?
Clearly states when to use this tool vs. search_salvage_signals for filtered lists, providing explicit alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use for factual questions about Salvage Signal's audience, free board, Daily Drop price, live aggregate founding availability, source, safety, or signup terms. This does not prepare a purchase link; use get_subscription_handoff only after a human expresses subscription interest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| name | Yes | |
| safety | Yes | |
| source | Yes | |
| dailyDrop | Yes | |
| description | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context by stating it does not prepare a purchase link, which is consistent and adds value beyond annotations.
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, front-loaded with the purpose and scope. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, its scope, and its limitations, which is sufficient for a simple read-only 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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter info is needed.
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 ('use for factual questions') and the resource ('Salvage Signal's audience, free board, Daily Drop price, etc.'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_subscription_handoff by specifying what it does not do.
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 explicitly says when to use (for factual questions) and when not (not for purchase link, use get_subscription_handoff after human expresses interest). This provides clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use only after a human expresses interest in subscribing or asks for the checkout path. It returns exact Chicago Daily Drop terms and an attributed signup URL. For price-only questions, use get_salvage_signal_offer. This tool is read-only: it accepts no email or payment data and cannot complete a purchase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | Short agent or channel identifier used only for signup attribution. | |
| campaign | No | Short campaign identifier used only for signup attribution. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | |
| links | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| pricing | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| readOnly | Yes | |
| agentPolicy | Yes | |
| humanDecision | Yes | |
| schemaVersion | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is read-only, accepts no email or payment data, and cannot complete a purchase. This enriches the agent's understanding of safety and limitations.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with usage context, output summary, and behavioral constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple, read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers when to use, what it returns, behavioral constraints, and parameter attribution context. No gaps remain.
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 both parameters (source, campaign) have clear descriptions. The description mentions 'attributed signup URL' which indirectly ties parameters to attribution, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns 'exact Chicago Daily Drop terms and an attributed signup URL', using a specific verb 'get' and resource 'subscription handoff'. It is distinct from siblings like get_salvage_signal_offer (price-only) and get_chicago_reuse_brief.
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 explicitly says 'Use only after a human expresses interest in subscribing or asks for the checkout path' and instructs to use get_salvage_signal_offer for price-only questions, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a specific alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use when a human or agent needs specific current Chicago demolition-permit prospects, especially by material, urgency, or result count. For an aggregate trend summary and fixed watch list, use get_chicago_reuse_brief instead. Results are public prospecting clues, never site-access permission or inventory guarantees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of ranked signals to return. | |
| urgency | No | Salvage Signal urgency band. | all |
| material | No | Material or building-characteristic filter. | all |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| market | Yes | |
| safety | Yes | |
| source | Yes | |
| signals | Yes | |
| dataMode | Yes | |
| signalCount | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open world, and non-destructive. The description adds that results are 'public prospecting clues' and not permissions or inventory guarantees, providing further context. No contradictions. Could mention rate limits or freshness but not necessary.
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, front-loaded with purpose and usage, every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.
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 covers purpose, usage guidelines, limitations, and alternatives. Combined with a full output schema and annotation hints, the tool is complete and well-documented 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 describes all 3 parameters fully with types, defaults, and enums (100% coverage). The description does not add further parameter-specific details, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 (search), resource (salvage signals), and distinguishes the tool from its sibling get_chicago_reuse_brief by specifying it is for specific prospects rather than aggregate summaries.
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 when to use (specific current prospects by material, urgency, count) and when not to use (for aggregate summary, use get_chicago_reuse_brief). Also notes caveats like results are public clues and not permissions or guarantees.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_chicago_reuse_briefget_salvage_signal_offerget_subscription_handoffsearch_salvage_signalsFind vetted Chicagoland renovation contractors and get fact-checked Chicago renovation answers.
Fresh US building permits with contacts from official city APIs. Construction lead generation.
Find free stuff near any US ZIP, priced for resale. Live listings, resale estimates, alerts.
Cook County / Chicago property by address or PIN: sales, permits, assessments, comps. 25 free/day.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
