search_listingsSearch for-sale, for-rent, or sold listings inside a geographic bounding box, with optional bedroom and price-ceiling filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bbox | Yes | Geographic bounding box as 'west,south,east,north' decimal lat/lon. Example: '-83.0,34.7,-82.0,35.0'. | |
| status | Yes | Listing status filter. | |
| beds_min | No | Minimum bedrooms (optional). | |
| price_max | No | Price ceiling in USD (optional). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the filtering capabilities but does not mention pagination, result limits, return format, or any side effects. For a search tool with no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key filters. Every element adds value and there is no redundancy.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify return behavior. It implies the result is a set of listings but does not mention pagination, result ordering, or what fields are returned. The input parameters are well covered, but the output side is under-specified.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds only minimal clarity by naming the filter categories ('for-sale, for-rent, or sold' and 'bedroom and price-ceiling filters'), which mostly mirrors the schema. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource (U.S. property listings) and scope (inside a bounding box). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are individual property lookups (by address, zpid, or zestimate), by emphasizing geographic area search.
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 conveys the primary use case: finding listings within a geographic bounding box with optional filters. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, but the spatial-search context is clear enough to guide selection relative to the individual-property lookup siblings.
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.
Each tool has a clear primary purpose: get_zestimate is for quick valuations, the two lookup tools return full property data, and search_listings is for finding listings by area. However, get_zestimate overlaps slightly with lookup_property_by_zpid since the latter includes Zestimate data, but the descriptions make the distinction clear.
All tool names follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, with verbs like get, lookup, and search. The use of 'get' for one tool and 'lookup' for two others is a minor inconsistency, but the pattern is still predictable and readable.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to property data retrieval and listing search. Each tool serves a distinct need, and the count is well below the upper threshold, making the set easy to navigate.
The server covers the core read-only workflows for property data: searching listings, retrieving full details by address or ZPID, and obtaining estimates. No significant gaps are apparent for a property-information-focused MCP.