PropertyList: Spanish Property MLS

Request a viewing

request_viewing

DestructiveIdempotent

Ask the agency for a viewing of a listing the person has already enquired about (with submit_enquiry, or on PropertyList, in the last 30 days), with the times that suit them. Identify the person by the email or phone they gave in that enquiry. Requires consent: true, on the same terms as the enquiry (get_enquiry_consent); never set it on their behalf. The agency sees the request on the enquiry and replies to the person directly to confirm a time. Asking again with new times replaces the earlier times. If there is no enquiry yet, use submit_enquiry with preferred_viewing_times instead.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "reference": "<reference>",
      "preferred_times": "<preferred_times>"
    },
    "name": "request_viewing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	No	The email the person gave in their enquiry. An email or a phone is required.
`phone`	No	The phone the person gave in their enquiry, when they gave one.
`consent`	No	Required, true: the person agreed to the consent_text from get_enquiry_consent.
`language`	No		en
`reference`	Yes	PropertyList listing reference, e.g. 'PLE-12345'.
`preferred_times`	Yes	When they would like to view it, in their words or as dates (e.g. 'Saturday morning', '2026-11-14 10:00', 'any weekday after 5pm').

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agency`	No
`status`	Yes
`reference`	Yes
`viewing_date`	No	The date read from preferred_times (YYYY-MM-DD), when one was.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only say this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, destructive call. The description explains the consent obligation and that it must never be set on the person's behalf, that the agency sees the request on the existing enquiry and replies directly to the person, and that re-asking with new times replaces the earlier times — which is precisely the behavior the destructiveHint/idempotentHint pair implies but does not spell out.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the precondition comes first, then identity, then consent, then the effect, then the fallback. A couple of clauses ('on PropertyList, in the last 30 days', the restated replacement rule) are slightly parenthetical but each carries real constraint information.

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?

For a mutating, consent-gated request tool with six parameters, an output schema, and heavy annotations, the description covers every decision an agent must make: eligibility, identity inputs, consent wording source, what the agency does next, replacement semantics, and the alternate path. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most fields; the description still adds real meaning by tying email/phone to the contact details used in the original enquiry and by pinning consent to the same terms as get_enquiry_consent. It does not add anything about language or the reference format beyond the schema, which keeps it below a 5.

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 ('Ask the agency for a viewing of a listing') and narrows it to a precondition (a listing the person has already enquired about). It also names the sibling route (submit_enquiry) for the case where the precondition fails, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('a listing the person has already enquired about ... in the last 30 days'), explicit when-not ('If there is no enquiry yet'), and the exact alternative to use instead (submit_enquiry with preferred_viewing_times). The 30-day window is a concrete, actionable boundary.

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

All PropertyList: Spanish Property MLS 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?