publish_listingSubmit a draft listing for moderation review, making it eligible to go public once approved. This is an irreversible submission — confirm with the user before calling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Listing ID to submit for review |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds beyond annotations: explicitly states irreversibility and requires user confirmation. Complements destructiveHint=true annotation.
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, purpose first then caution. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.
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 single required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness, description provides all needed context for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 single parameter is well-described in schema. Description adds no extra semantic detail for the parameter, meeting baseline.
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?
Description clearly states the tool submits a draft listing for moderation review, distinguishing it from create/edit/close/promote listing tools. Verb 'submit' and resource 'draft listing' are specific.
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 guidance to confirm with user due to irreversibility, but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools. Context is clear enough for correct use.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes covering account management, listings, search, financials, etc. However, `fetch` and `get_listing` both retrieve full listing details, creating potential confusion. Also, `search` and `search_listings` overlap but are differentiated by free-text vs. filtered search.
All tool names follow a consistent `verb_noun` pattern in snake_case (e.g., `create_listing`, `publish_listing`, `connect_account`). The naming is predictable and clear throughout.
At 39 tools, the server is quite large for a real estate domain. While it covers many aspects, some tools like `fetch` and `get_listing` are redundant. The count feels excessive and could be streamlined to around 25-30 without losing functionality.
The tool set covers listing CRUD, various search types, agent/company profiles, financial calculators, inquiries, saved searches, and account management. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of bulk operations or advanced analytics, but core workflows are well-supported.