Deep profile for a single agent: license number/status/expiration, brokerage affiliation, claim status, geography, total units / volume / sell-ratio (when available), website, Instagram, Flika score. Pass either the UUID id or the slug returned by scout.find_public_agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | UUID id from scout.find_public_agent results. | |
| slug | No | URL slug (e.g. 'jane-doe-sc-12345') — alternative to id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The listed fields are output content, not behavior.
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?
Two sentences: first lists output fields, second gives input instructions. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.
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?
For a profile tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates key output fields and input options. It lacks behavioral context but covers purpose and parameters well.
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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the source of values (from scout.find_public_agent) and that parameters are alternatives, which aids correct usage.
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?
The description clearly states it provides a deep profile for a single agent and lists specific data fields, distinguishing it from siblings like scout.find_agent (simpler lookup) and scout.compare_agents (comparison).
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?
It explicitly instructs to pass either the UUID id or slug from scout.find_public_agent, providing clear context for when to use and how to input. However, it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from agent profiles and comparisons to market data and lead management. Overlaps like find_agent vs find_public_agent are explicitly differentiated by live vs directory status.
All tools use snake_case and the 'scout.' prefix, but they mix verb_noun (e.g., compare_agents, search_listings) and noun_noun (e.g., agent_profile, coverage) patterns. However, the naming remains predictable and readable overall.
With 18 tools, the server covers agent discovery, brokerage info, market data, listings, lead management, referrals, and licensing—well-scoped for a real estate assistant without redundancy.
The tool set covers all key workflows: agent and brokerage search, market insights, school data, listing search, lead generation and purchase, referral management, and license verification, with no obvious gaps for its domain.
