Retrieve comprehensive details for a specific property from Redfin URL. Returns full description, tax history, HOA fees, walk scores, nearby schools, crime statistics, and property photos/virtual tour link. Use for due diligence, investment research, or detailed listing analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Direct Redfin listing URL or property page link (e.g. 'https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/123-Main-St') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the returned data types (tax history, HOA fees, walk scores, etc.) and clarifying that the input must be a direct Redfin URL. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 two sentences: it states the primary action, lists the return content, and identifies use cases. It is front-loaded, scannable, and contains 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?
Given the tool has a single well-documented parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete by explaining the purpose, return fields, and intended use cases. It could optionally mention that Redfin data may be dynamic (openWorldHint) or that the URL must be valid, but these are minor omissions.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter, including a description and example. The tool description only repeats 'Redfin URL' and adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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?
The description uses the specific verb 'retrieve' with an explicit resource ('comprehensive details for a specific property from Redfin URL'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling search_redfin_properties by focusing on a single property URL rather than searching.
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 states appropriate use cases: due diligence, investment research, and detailed listing analysis. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool as an alternative or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the use case framing is clear enough.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_redfin_properties finds listings, while get_property_details dives into a specific property's full record. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern (get_*, search_*), with consistent snake_case and a clear domain prefix. The naming is predictable and uniform.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal and might be underpowered for a full real-estate workflow. The tools cover a basic search-to-detail flow, but the scope is thin compared to typical MCP servers.
The server covers the essential search-then-details pattern for property research. Missing capabilities like market comparisons or saved listings are minor gaps that an agent can work around by chaining the existing tools.