withdraw_listingWithdraw a listing, removing it from public search. This is a terminal status — the listing cannot be re-activated; create a new listing instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hashid | Yes | Hashid of the listing to withdraw. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include destructiveHint, but the description adds extra context: the operation is terminal and irreversible. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the consequence, which is valuable for an agent deciding to invoke it.
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, each earning its place: the first states the core action and effect, the second explains the terminal consequence and alternative. No fluff or redundancy.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what happens, the harsh consequence, and the fallback action. It is complete for the agent's needs.
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 the hashid parameter is already defined as 'Hashid of the listing to withdraw' in the schema. The description does not add further detail about the parameter format or constraints, so it relies on 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 action ('Withdraw a listing'), the resource, and the immediate effect ('removing it from public search'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the terminal nature, which separates it from update/publish operations.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: the status is terminal and the listing cannot be re-activated, with a clear alternative ('create a new listing instead'). This tells the agent when to use this tool and what to do if re-activation is needed.
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.