Skip to main content
Glama

Scout

by io.github.Flikah

scout.route_lead

Submit a buyer or seller lead to Flika. Flika (via Spencer Wilkinson as Broker-in-Charge) routes the lead as a standard broker-to-broker referral: either to a Scout-claimed agent, a public-directory agent via auto-emailed referral, a signed partner brokerage, or held for manual routing. Standard referral fee: 30% buyer-side, 25% listing-side, 18-month tail, net-30 after funded close. Requires a Flika MCP API key with 'route_lead' scope. Request one at https://flika.realestate/partners/mcp

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesClient's name (first + last).
emailNoClient's email (preferred contact method).
notesNoAny context — partner disagreement, must-haves, PCS dates, etc.
phoneNoClient's phone number.
lead_typeYesWhether your client is buying or selling.
budget_maxNoFor buyers: maximum budget USD.
budget_minNoFor buyers: minimum budget USD.
target_addressNoFor sellers: the property address.
timeline_weeksNoExpected weeks until transaction (0 = now, 12 = 3 months, etc.).
destination_zipNo
destination_cityYesTarget city — where the client wants to buy/sell.
destination_stateYesTarget state (2-letter).
target_agent_slugNoOptional. If the AI has already picked a specific agent via scout.find_agent or scout.find_public_agent, pass their agent_slug here to route the referral directly.
referring_agent_emailYesYour email as the referring agent (for commission routing).
target_brokerage_slugNoOptional. If the AI picked a specific brokerage via scout.find_brokerage, route the referral to that brokerage instead.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided; description discloses routing destinations, fee structure, and API key requirement, but does not detail response behavior 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Single paragraph is dense but contains all key information; could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for routing options) but remains efficient.

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?

Given 15 parameters and no output schema, description explains routing outcomes and fees but lacks return value details; fairly complete for a submission tool.

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?

With 93% schema description coverage, the description adds little beyond what the schema provides for most parameters; it provides high-level context on routing but not per-parameter nuance.

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?

Description uses specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('buyer or seller lead') and explains the routing process, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like scout.find_agent.

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?

Description implicitly guides usage by mentioning optional fields for pre-selected agents/brokerages, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives.

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

All Scout toolsInspect
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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources