searchSearch Tu Lugar real estate listings by free-text query (location, neighborhood, or keywords). Returns a list of matching listings with id, title, and URL. Use fetch to get a listing's full content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search phrase, e.g. "apartment in Villa Morra" or "Encarnación" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns a list with id, title, and URL, which is useful but does not disclose pagination, result limits, or other behaviors.
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?
Three sentences efficiently communicate purpose, input, output, and next-step advice. No redundant or vague phrasing.
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 search tool without output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers input, output fields, and a clear next tool to use (fetch). Missing details on pagination or result limits, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 description adds value by explaining the query parameter is free-text and providing examples ('apartment in Villa Morra'), which helps the agent understand input semantics.
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 it searches real estate listings by free-text query, distinguishing from fetch (which gets full content). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool search_listings, which likely has overlapping functionality.
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 advises when to use this tool (free-text search) and refers to fetch for full content. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not address alternatives like search_listings.
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.