[Real Estate] Search for real estate properties on Redfin by location. Returns property listings with prices, addresses, beds, baths, and square footage.
Args: location: City, ZIP code, or full Redfin search URL (e.g. "Seattle, WA", "90210", or "https://www.redfin.com/zipcode/90210") max_results: Maximum number of results to return (default 10)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, stating it returns listings. However, it does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits, pagination, or handling of no results. The description does not contradict 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?
The description is concise with a clear purpose statement and a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.
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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and output reasonably well. It could mention pagination or result limits, but the default max_results is covered. Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description includes an Args section that explains both parameters in detail: location accepts city, ZIP, or full Redfin search URL; max_results has a default of 10. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 verb 'Search', the resource 'real estate properties on Redfin', and the returned data (prices, addresses, beds, baths, square footage). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'real-estate__get_property_details' and 'redfin__search_properties' by specifying the platform and output fields.
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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No prerequisites, limitations, or when-not-to-use instructions are given. The context is implied but not explicit.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.