get_registryReturns the full attribute registry — every searchable and filterable field, its type, allowed values, and display label. Read this first to understand the schema before calling search_listings with attribute filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly states it's a read operation that returns registry data. It goes beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint) by detailing the content (fields, types, allowed values, labels), which adds useful 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and provides the use case (prerequisite for search_listings), fitting well within the toolset.
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?
There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter info; the tool's purpose is fully conveyed without them.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('the full attribute registry') with details on what it contains (fields, types, allowed values, display label). It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it's the schema to read before using search_listings with filters.
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 when to use: 'Read this first to understand the schema before calling search_listings with attribute filters.' This provides clear context and guidance, effectively directing the agent's workflow.
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 clearly distinct purpose: listing CRUD, attachment upload workflow, search with interpret, geocoding, saved searches, and registry retrieval. No two tools overlap significantly; even the upload-related tools (sign, confirm, attach) are sequential and distinct.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_listing, get_registry, search_listings). The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.
With 15 tools, the server covers the core functionalities of a commercial real estate listing system without being bloated. Each tool serves a necessary role, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set is missing critical lifecycle operations: there is no way to delete or archive a listing, nor any tool to publish/unpublish a listing. This leaves an obvious gap in the basic CRUD workflow, which will cause agent failures when users need to remove or finalize listings.