Skip to main content
Glama

Tu Lugar

by com.tulugar

Search Agencies & Developers

search_companies
Read-only

Search agencies and developers BY NAME (or city/type). Use q with the company/agency name — e.g. q="RE/MAX Urbana" — punctuation and accents are ignored. This is how you answer "properties by " (find the company here, then search_listings with company set to its name; for a DEVELOPER also check search_projects with company set — developer inventory is usually projects/units, not listings).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoCompany/agency name (partial ok; punctuation/accents ignored)
cityNo
typeNo
limitNo
verifiedNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context (e.g., punctuation/accents ignored, workflow hints) without contradiction, fully supporting safe invocation.

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?

The description is a single paragraph with no wasted words, includes an example and clear workflow guidance, achieving high information density and readability.

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?

The description covers the intended usage and post-search workflow but omits the return format or result structure, which is notable given the absence of an output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

While the description provides a concrete example for 'q', it does not detail the other four parameters (city, type, limit, verified) beyond a vague mention, and schema coverage is only 20%, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches agencies and developers by name, city, or type, and distinguishes it from siblings like search_listings and search_projects by providing a specific workflow.

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?

The description explicitly explains when to use this tool (to find a company by name) and how to proceed with related tools (search_listings for agencies, search_projects for developers), offering clear guidance over alternatives.

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

All Tu Lugar toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources