Add real estate agent in the system, returns the id of the agent if successful.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"data": "<data>"
},
"name": "agent_add"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The agent data. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / data / descriptionAdded value: +"The agent data."Input schema / properties / data / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "firstName",
+ "lastName"
+]Input schema / properties / data / properties / about / descriptionAdded value: +"About information of the agent."Input schema / properties / data / properties / email / descriptionAdded value: +"Name value of the email addresses. Name is the type of email address (e.g., \"work\", \"personal\"), and value is the email address itself (e.g., \"john.doe@example.com\")."Input schema / properties / data / properties / externalId / descriptionAdded value: +"External Id of the agent, pass in your id to associate this agent with your system."Input schema / properties / data / properties / fax / descriptionAdded value: +"Name value of the fax numbers. Name is the type of fax number (e.g., \"work\", \"personal\"), and value is the fax number itself (e.g., \"+1-555-555-5555\")."Input schema / properties / data / properties / firstName / descriptionAdded value: +"First name of the agent."Input schema / properties / data / properties / lastName / descriptionAdded value: +"Last name of the agent."Input schema / properties / data / properties / phone / descriptionAdded value: +"Name value of the phone numbers. Name is the type of phone number (e.g., \"work\", \"personal\"), and value is the phone number itself (e.g., \"+1-555-555-5555\")."Input schema / properties / data / properties / profileImageUrl / descriptionAdded value: +"Url of the agent profile image, this should be an external url."Input schema / properties / data / properties / public / descriptionAdded value: +"Indicates whether the agent's profile is public."Input schema / properties / data / properties / social / descriptionAdded value: +"List of social media links. Supported social media: Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Youtube, Vimeo, TikTok, Threads, Instagram. The value should be the url of the social media account."Input schema / properties / data / properties / social / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / data / properties / social / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / data / properties / social / itemsAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that a successful call returns the new agent's id — but it says nothing about permissions, duplicate-agent handling, whether the record is immediately published/visible, or what happens on partial failure. That leaves a write operation substantially under-described.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the return-value note is appended where it is most useful. It is efficient, though a sentence or two of scope would have earned its place.
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 create tool with a fully documented nested payload the schema does most of the work, and the description covers the return value despite there being no output schema. However, with zero annotation coverage on a mutating tool, a reader still lacks the side-effect and permission context needed to invoke it confidently.
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?
There is a single parameter whose nested schema already documents every field at 100% coverage, including the fax/email/phone name-value maps, social URL whitelist, and externalId linkage. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add real estate agent') and states the result ('returns the id of the agent if successful'), so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools, notably agent_update or website_agent_create, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus agent_update, agent_get_by_id, or the website_agent_create family. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the creation path, and no exclusion or prerequisite is given.
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.