Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Czech distressed real estate — anonymized district aggregates (k≥5). Free tier.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
martinhavel/cz-agents-mcp
GitHub Stars
3
Server Listing
cz-agents-mcp

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.7/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion with other tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

With only one tool, naming consistency is not a concern; the single name follows a clear verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count4/5

The single tool covers a very specific domain (district-level aggregate real estate distress data), which is appropriate for a focused, free-tier API. However, one tool is minimal.

Completeness4/5

The tool provides comprehensive aggregate statistics for the intended domain, but lacks any individual property or detail-level operations, which is by design due to PII restrictions.

Available Tools

1 tool
get_district_aggregateA
Read-only
Inspect

Aggregate distress real estate statistics for a Czech okres (district) from public registries (ISIR insolvencies + portál dražeb / CEVD forced sales). Returns counts by category (insolvency / auction) and average market data. To avoid identifying an individual, districts with 1–4 distress leads return null counts plus counts_band="<5" (records exist, exact figure withheld); 0 is shown as 0, ≥5 exact. low_activity flags k<5. Free tier — no per-person PII (no names/addresses).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okresYesCzech okres name (e.g. "Praha", "Brno-město", "Beroun"). Case-sensitive.
window_daysNoLookback window in days. Default 90.
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses important behaviors: the privacy mechanism (hiding low counts with counts_band '<5'), handling of zero vs. exact counts, and the free tier with no PII. This adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, fully informing the agent of data limitations.

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 description is slightly verbose (three sentences, the last one long) but well-structured: first sentence gives purpose, second explains privacy, third reiterates free and no PII. It is front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: counts by category, average market data, and how low counts are represented (null + counts_band). This is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial semantic details: 'okres' is case-sensitive, 'window_days' has default 90 and enum values. It also explains how the response behaves for low counts, which is not in the schema. This significantly aids correct invocation.

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?

The description clearly states the tool aggregates distress real estate statistics for a Czech district using specific public registries (ISIR insolvencies, forced sales). The verb 'Aggregate' and resource 'distress real estate statistics' are specific, and it distinguishes itself by mentioning the sources and the privacy handling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage context: for obtaining aggregate stats on Czech districts, with case-sensitive input and configurable lookback. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but since no siblings are provided, the guidance is adequate for understanding appropriate use cases.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.