Get real estate property by id.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "property_get_by_id"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The property id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"The property id."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a non-destructive read, but the description never states the return shape (single property record versus null/error), what a missing id produces, or whether any auth or visibility filtering applies. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves meaningful gaps.
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 short sentence with the resource and the lookup key front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padded. It is efficient, though its terseness is partly why the behavioral and usage guidance are absent.
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 one-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly. It is not complete, however, on the two things it alone could supply: sibling disambiguation against property_search_by_address and the not-found/return behavior.
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 required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating 'The property id.' The description adds no syntax, format, or provenance detail (e.g. where the id comes from) beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 (Get) and resource (real estate property) qualified by the lookup key (by id), so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling property_search_by_address, which is the main other read path into properties, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to use this when you already have a property id versus calling property_search_by_address when you only have an address. No prerequisites, no note about what happens with an unknown id, and no mention of the many mutation siblings the agent should not confuse this with.
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.