bimhouse

set_site_context

[EN] Override a house's site conditions for houki_check (needs edit_token). Only provided fields are updated; returns the re-run houki verdict. Fixes false NGs from assumed defaults (e.g. set the real road width). / 物件の敷地条件を上書きして houki_check に反映する。edit_token 認証が必要。指定したフィールドのみ更新し、再判定した houki を返す。既定値による誤 NG (例: 前面道路幅員) を実値で是正できる。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	物件 slug (必須)
`zoning`	No	用途地域 (例: 第一種住居地域)
`latitude`	No	緯度 (日影計算用)
`edit_token`	Yes	create_house が返した edit_token (必須)
`climate_zone`	No	省エネ地域区分 1-8
`road_width_m`	No	前面道路幅員 (m) — 道路斜線・容積率低減に効く
`fire_district`	No	防火地域 / 準防火地域
`high_district`	No	高度地区 (例: 第1種高度地区)
`min_lot_area_m2`	No	敷地面積の最低限度 (㎡)
`north_setback_m`	No	北側隣地距離 (m)
`shadow_regulation`	No	日影規制の条例値 {measurement_height_m, limit_5m_h, limit_10m_h, start_hour, end_hour}。省略時は用途地域+規模で自動判定
`neighbor_setback_m`	No	隣地境界距離 (m) — 隣地斜線

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial update behavior, authentication requirement, and return of the re-run verdict, but does not mention potential side effects or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two short paragraphs (English and Japanese). Every sentence is essential and informative, with no unnecessary content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers purpose, authentication, return value, and typical use case. Parameter details are in the schema. Could mention errors or output format, but adequate given 100% schema coverage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context that only provided fields are updated, but does not significantly enhance meaning 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 clearly states the verb 'override' and the resource 'house's site conditions', specifically for houki_check. It distinguishes from the sibling 'houki_check' and implies a separate admin variant exists.

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 indicates when to use (fix false NGs from defaults) and the need for an edit_token, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. Context is clear.

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

All bimhouse tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some potential overlap exists (e.g., get_site_context and get_houki_rules both provide site conditions, and set_site_context vs. upsert_zoning_rule could be confused). Overall, descriptions help disambiguate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools predominantly use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_house, update_house, set_visibility). A few outliers like houki_check and whoami break the pattern, but naming is mostly consistent.

Tool Count3/5

29 tools is heavy but covers a broad domain (house design, construction, catalog, contractors, admin). Some tools are niche (e.g., list_incomplete_addresses, set_forkable), but each serves a clear purpose. Could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

Core operations for house lifecycle (create, read, update, check) are present. Lacks explicit delete/archive for houses (only set_visibility), and no tool to update site context directly (only set via set_site_context). Minor gaps but domain is well-covered.

Resources

Need Help?