TBG — The Brett Group

Contact TBG

contact_tbg

Send TBG a build-to-rent inquiry (landowner, co-investor, builder partner) or another question. Home projects go through submit_project_request and loans through submit_lending_inquiry. Accepted only with user_consented=true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "topic": "<topic>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "phone": "<phone>",
      "user_consented": "<user_consented>"
    },
    "name": "contact_tbg"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	No
`name`	Yes	Full name of the person (not the assistant).
`role`	No	For build_to_rent.
`email`	No	Email address (optional but recommended).
`phone`	Yes	10-digit US phone number.
`topic`	Yes
`details`	No
`assistant_name`	No	Name of the AI assistant or app submitting, e.g. "Claude", "ChatGPT", "Gemini".
`user_consented`	Yes	Set to true ONLY if you showed the person this exact consent text and they explicitly agreed: "I agree that TBG may share my details with one licensed partner who may contact me by phone, text or email about this request. Consent is not a condition of any purchase. Message and data rates may apply."

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish this is a non-idempotent, externally-facing (openWorldHint) write, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds real value beyond the annotations by declaring that submission is gated on explicit user consent, which is a behavioral constraint an agent must respect before calling. It stops short of describing what happens after submission (who contacts the user, timing, failure modes).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by disambiguation and the consent gate. No filler, and each sentence changes how an agent would act.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description still covers purpose, routing, and the consent precondition, which is nearly everything needed to invoke correctly. It does not tell the agent what a successful submission returns or how the inquiry is handled downstream, which is a minor gap for a fire-and-forget write.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, leaving zip, topic and details undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by mapping the role values (landowner, co-investor, builder partner) to the build_to_rent topic and by clarifying the subject matter that selects the build_to_rent vs. other topic branches.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send TBG a build-to-rent inquiry') and immediately enumerates the relevant roles (landowner, co-investor, builder partner). It also names the two sibling tools it must not be confused with, so the agent can disambiguate without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit routing rules: home projects go to submit_project_request, loans go to submit_lending_inquiry, everything else (including build-to-rent) lands here. It also states the hard precondition 'accepted only with user_consented=true', which tells the agent when the call will be rejected.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TBG — The Brett Group tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?