Skip to main content
Glama

cenaodhad – ceny bytů v Praze z katastru

by cz.cenaodhad
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ověření ceny inzerátu / Asking price check

overeni_ceny_inzeratu
Read-onlyIdempotent

CZ: Použij, když uživatel (typicky kupující) má NABÍDKOVOU CENU bytu z inzerátu a chce vědět, jak si stojí proti skutečným prodejům. Porovná zadanou cenu s rozpětím realizovaných prodejů podobně velkých bytů ve stejné pražské čtvrti z katastru nemovitostí. Vrátí rozpětí, střed, rozdíl v % (formát „−6,2 %“), Kč/m² a pozici v pěti pásmech. Neutrální srovnání, ne verdikt. | Nepoužívej bez konkrétní ceny z inzerátu (→ odhad_ceny_bytu) ani pro domy a pozemky (→ odhad_ceny_domu, odhad_ceny_pozemku). Inzeráty nenačítá a odkazy neotevírá: čtvrť, plochu a cenu musí zadat uživatel nebo je vyčti z textu, který vložil. | EN: Use when the user (typically a buyer) has an ASKING PRICE for an apartment from a listing and wants to know how it compares with actual sales. Compares the given price with the range of realised sales of similar-sized apartments in the same Prague district from the Czech land registry. Returns range, middle, difference in % (format "−6,2 %"), CZK/m² and a five-band position. Neutral comparison, not a verdict. | Do not use without a specific listing price (→ odhad_ceny_bytu) or for houses and land (→ odhad_ceny_domu, odhad_ceny_pozemku). It does not fetch listings or open links: district, area and price must come from the user or from text they pasted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ctvrtYesNázev pražské čtvrtě (katastrální území) z inzerátu, ne obvod „Praha N“ ani ulice; diakritika nevadí. Např. "Vinohrady" / Prague district (cadastral area) from the listing, not a "Praha N" borough or a street; diacritics optional. E.g. "Vinohrady"
jazykNoJazyk odpovědi / Response languagecs
plocha_m2YesPlocha bytu v m² podle inzerátu jako číslo, 15–250, např. 60 / Apartment area in m² from the listing as a number, 15–250, e.g. 60
nabidkova_cena_kcYesNabídková cena z inzerátu v celých Kč jako číslo bez mezer a měny, 500 000–200 000 000, např. 8900000 pro 8,9 mil. Kč / Asking price in whole CZK as a plain number, 500,000–200,000,000, e.g. 8900000 for CZK 8.9 million

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / ctvrt / description
      Previous value: -"Název pražské čtvrtě (katastrální území), např. \"Vinohrady\" / Prague cadastral district"New value: +"Název pražské čtvrtě (katastrální území) z inzerátu, ne obvod „Praha N“ ani ulice; diakritika nevadí. Např. \"Vinohrady\" / Prague district (cadastral area) from the listing, not a \"Praha N\" borough or a street; diacritics optional. E.g. \"Vinohrady\""
    • changedInput schema / properties / nabidkova_cena_kc / description
      Previous value: -"Nabídková cena z inzerátu v Kč / Asking price in CZK"New value: +"Nabídková cena z inzerátu v celých Kč jako číslo bez mezer a měny, 500 000–200 000 000, např. 8900000 pro 8,9 mil. Kč / Asking price in whole CZK as a plain number, 500,000–200,000,000, e.g. 8900000 for CZK 8.9 million"
    • changedInput schema / properties / plocha_m2 / description
      Previous value: -"Plocha bytu v m² podle inzerátu, 15–250 / Apartment area in m², 15–250"New value: +"Plocha bytu v m² podle inzerátu jako číslo, 15–250, např. 60 / Apartment area in m² from the listing as a number, 15–250, e.g. 60"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it lists what is returned (range, middle, % difference, CZK/m², five-band position), frames the output as a neutral comparison rather than a verdict, and discloses a limitation — it does not fetch listings or open links.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the use case, then the do-not-use routing, then output shape; every sentence carries content. Length is doubled by the CZ/EN mirror, but that duplication is inherent to the bilingual contract and each version is internally waste-free.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (range, middle, % format, CZK/m², five bands). Combined with annotations covering safety and schema covering all params, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with ranges, examples and the ctvrt/jazyk distinctions already documented in the schema. The description only restates that district, area and price must be supplied by the user, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — comparing an asking price against the range of realised sales of similar apartments in the same Prague district — with the scope (apartment, same district, registry data) made explicit. It is readily distinguishable from odhad_ceny_bytu (no price given) and from the house/land estimators named in the do-not-use clause.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (buyer has a concrete asking price from a listing) plus when-not (no specific price → odhad_ceny_bytu; houses/land → odhad_ceny_domu / odhad_ceny_pozemku), and it states the precondition that inputs must come from the user or pasted text. Nothing is left to inference.

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

All cenaodhad – ceny bytů v Praze z katastru toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources