Property block analysis — identify buildings with multiple flat sales (block-buy opportunities).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| months | No | Number of calendar months ending today; default 24. Results are limited to available coverage. | |
| postcode | Yes | ||
| search_level | No | sector |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / months / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of calendar months ending today; default 24. Results are limited to available coverage."Input schema / properties / months / minimumAdded value: +1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is established. The description adds the analytical intent (block-buy opportunities) but does not disclose data coverage, response behavior, or limitations beyond what the months parameter notes. No contradiction.
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 tightly worded sentence with the core idea front-loaded; the em-dash expansion earns its place. No filler or repetition.
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 presence of an output schema and readOnlyHint covers returns and safety, but the description omits usage context and leaves search_level and postcode semantics underspecified. An agent would struggle to choose this over sibling property tools or to set search_level correctly.
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 only 33%; only 'months' is documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, never mentioning search_level or the role of postcode beyond the general purpose. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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?
States a specific verb ('identify') and resource ('buildings with multiple flat sales'), with 'block-buy opportunities' giving an investment-oriented context that distinguishes it from sibling property tools like prop_ppd_transactions or prop_property_comps.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling property tools; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions. The only contextual clue is the purpose statement, which implies use for block-buy analysis but leaves selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.