Skip to main content
Glama

Look Up Property History

lookup_property_history
Read-only

Get transaction history for a specific address - essential for due diligence.

REQUIRED: One of these combinations:

  1. address + code_postal: "49 cours Richard Vitton" → sales at that number (one building). Without a number ("cours Richard Vitton") → the 50 most recent sales on the whole street. Full street types (cours, avenue, boulevard…) and bis/ter are understood.

  2. section + no_plan + code_commune: Cadastral parcel lookup

Returns:

  • Transactions, newest first (max 50), with scope = address | street | parcel

  • Each transaction includes an id field — pass it to get_building_characteristics for BDNB building data

  • Price, surface, type, rooms for each

  • price_evolution: only for a repeat sale of the same property (same type, surface within 5%), otherwise null

  • No sale at the number: the numbers on that street that do have sales

Workflow: lookup_property_history → use transaction id → get_building_characteristics

Example by address: {address: "49 cours Richard Vitton", code_postal: "69003"}

Example by cadastral: {section: "AB", no_plan: "123", code_commune: "101"}

Cost: 20 credits per call, refunded when nothing is found

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "lookup_property_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressNoStreet address to search
no_planNoCadastral plan number
sectionNoCadastral section
code_postalNoPostal code (required with address)
code_communeNoDVF commune code — NOT the full 5-digit INSEE code. Strip the 2-digit department prefix and any leading zeros. Examples: Paris 16e → '116', Paris 1er → '101', Lyon 6e → '386', Nice → '88', Bordeaux → '63'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing cost (20 credits, refunded on empty results), the 50-result cap ordered newest-first, the exact scope semantics, and the fallback to nearby street numbers when no sale exists at the given number. However, the scoring rubric credits comparative context here; the return-shape disclosure is strong, but it remains a quiet utility with no auth or rate-limit notes beyond cost per call.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then structured into REQUIRED combinations, Returns, Workflow, and Examples — easy to scan. Slight redundancy: the transaction-id handoff to get_building_characteristics is stated in both the Returns block and the Workflow line, and two full examples add length without new semantics.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: field list, ordering, cap, scope label, price_evolution only on repeat sales, and the empty-result fallback. Combined with the explicit cost and workflow chain, nothing an agent needs to call this 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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real conditional meaning: code_postal is required only with address, while section + no_plan + code_commune form an alternate cadastral path that is mutually exclusive with the address path. It does not, however, restate the tricky code_commune format caveat (that lives only in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get transaction history") plus the scope (a specific address), and immediately defines the three possible scopes it can resolve to (address | street | parcel). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like search_property_transactions because it also names the downstream partner tool get_building_characteristics.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the two required parameter combinations, explains the behavioral difference between supplying a house number versus a bare street name, and states the follow-up workflow (lookup_property_history → transaction id → get_building_characteristics). It even clarifies that street types and bis/ter suffixes are parsed, leaving little to inference.

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.

Resources