publish_listingKick off the publish pipeline for a draft listing. Enriches with AI, gathers market data, then transitions the listing to Active. Returns the pipeline ID to track progress. Fails with the unmet readiness checklist if the listing is not ready (including any photo that has not cleared content moderation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hashid | Yes | Hashid of the listing to publish. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses the pipeline steps (AI enrichment, market data, transition to Active), return value, and failure mode. Lacks mention of side effects or idempotency but still provides substantial behavioral insight.
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-load the main purpose, then efficiently convey process, return, and error behavior. No redundant 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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return value (pipeline ID) and error condition (readiness checklist). No critical 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 covers the sole parameter fully with a description. The tool description adds no new parameter detail beyond restating its purpose, so 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?
Specific verb 'Kick off the publish pipeline' clearly identifies the action, and the resource is scoped to a draft listing. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_publish_status or update_listing.
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?
States it applies to draft listings and warns it fails if readiness checklist is unmet, including photo moderation. Does not explicitly name alternatives but the context is clear enough for selection among siblings.
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.