ZVG Einfach

search_auctions

Search German foreclosure auctions with filters.

    Args:
        land: German state abbreviation (e.g. 'by' for Bayern, 'nw' for Nordrhein-Westfalen).
            A sandbox key only accepts 'st' (Sachsen-Anhalt).
        court: Court name (e.g. 'München', 'Berlin')
        object_type: Property type (apartment, detached_house, multi_family_house, etc.)
        city: City name
        plz: Postal code
        min_price: Minimum Verkehrswert in EUR
        max_price: Maximum Verkehrswert in EUR
        min_rooms: Minimum number of rooms
        max_rooms: Maximum number of rooms
        min_area: Minimum living area in m²
        max_area: Maximum living area in m²
        auction_date_from: Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)
        auction_date_to: End date (YYYY-MM-DD)
        q: Full-text search query
        lat: Latitude for radius search
        lng: Longitude for radius search
        radius_km: Search radius in km (1-500)
        sort: Sort by: auction_date, price, distance, created_at
        order: Sort order: asc, desc
        page: Page number (default 1)
        per_page: Results per page (default 10, max 50)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`q`	No
`lat`	No
`lng`	No
`plz`	No
`city`	No
`land`	No
`page`	No
`sort`	No	auction_date
`court`	No
`order`	No	asc
`max_area`	No
`min_area`	No
`per_page`	No
`max_price`	No
`max_rooms`	No
`min_price`	No
`min_rooms`	No
`radius_km`	No
`object_type`	No
`auction_date_to`	No
`auction_date_from`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful operational constraint (a sandbox key only accepts 'st'), but it says nothing about authentication requirements beyond that, rate limits, what happens when lat/lng are supplied without radius_km, or any response behavior. The one disclosed constraint prevents a lower score, but the disclosure is far from complete.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and each parameter line earns its place by clarifying a field the schema leaves undocumented. The list is long, but with 21 parameters that length is proportionate. Minor deduction for the docstring-style 'Args:' framing, which is functional but slightly mechanical.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and the parameter documentation is strong. However, for a 21-parameter search tool with no annotations, the description omits usage guidance relative to siblings and behavioral details like pagination semantics beyond page/per_page, auth requirements, and rate limits. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. It does so by documenting every parameter with meaning, expected format, examples, and constraints: land with state abbreviations and the sandbox exception, date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), radius range (1-500 km), sort fields, order values, and per_page defaults and maximums. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first line states a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Search German foreclosure auctions with filters.' That is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_filter_options or get_auction, so it falls 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description never explains when to use this tool versus get_auction, get_filter_options, or list_courts_in_state, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is that this is the search/list operation, which an agent must infer from the tool name and the word 'search.'

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

All ZVG Einfach tools Inspect

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

Need Help?