get_listing
Get individual listing detail with CFPB complaints for that brand
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
resale
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it's a read operation that includes complaints, but fails to mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Limited transparency.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks important parameter clarification, slightly reducing effectiveness.
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?
Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description partially explains the tool's purpose (listing detail with complaints). However, it omits details like what 'listing detail' includes and the meaning of the 'id' parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter 'id', the description does not explain what the 'id' represents (e.g., listing ID, brand ID). No additional meaning is added beyond the schema.
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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'individual listing detail', and adds 'with CFPB complaints for that brand'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_orientation and get_resort.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving listing details with complaints but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_timeshares or list_brands. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct data source or action: search tools query different databases (listings, complaints, FL DBPR projects), get tools retrieve specific entities (listing, resort, payment history), list tools aggregate brands/resorts, and bridge tools handle curation. There is no overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case: add_to_bridge, create_bridge, get_listing, get_orientation, get_payment_history, get_resort, get_stats, list_brands, list_resorts, search_complaints, search_dbpr_projects, search_timeshares. The pattern is predictable and clear.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a timeshare research and bridge curation domain. It covers multiple data sources (listings, complaints, FL DBPR, stats) and actions (search, get, list, create, add) without being excessive or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core workflows: orientation, searching, viewing details, complaints, registration, and bridge creation. Minor gaps exist: there is no tool to remove listings from bridges or to list existing bridges, and no update/delete for listings (though likely out of scope). Overall, the surface is largely complete for the intended use.