homecastr-remote
Server Details
US home price forecasts via HTTP. No install — just add the URL. P10/P50/P90 bands, 1–5yr horizons.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct input type (address, H3 cell, parcel) with no overlap in purpose. An agent can clearly differentiate based on the available geospatial identifier.
All tools follow a consistent 'forecast_by_[input]' pattern, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With 3 tools, the count is slightly low but fully appropriate for a specialized forecasting server that covers three common query methods. It avoids bloat while providing essential functionality.
The tool surface covers the primary input types for home value forecasts (address, neighborhood, lot). Minor gaps like batch forecasting or additional geohash support are not critical for the core use case.
Available Tools
3 toolsforecast_by_addressForecast by AddressAInspect
Get probabilistic home value forecasts for any US street address. Returns current value, P10/P50/P90 forecast bands, appreciation percentage, reliability score, and fan chart data across 1-5 year horizons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Target forecast year (2026-2030, default: 2030) | |
| address | Yes | US street address, e.g. '123 Main St Houston TX' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the probabilistic nature, reliability score, and fan chart data, which adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. However, it does not discuss data freshness, rate limits, or permission requirements.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key outputs. Every part is informative with no redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately lists the return values. Parameter details are covered by the schema. Minor gaps: the format of fan chart data and interpretation of reliability score are not explained. Overall, sufficiently complete for a forecasting tool.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., year range and default, address format).
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 the tool returns probabilistic home value forecasts for US street addresses, listing specific outputs (current value, P10/P50/P90 bands, etc.) and time horizons (1-5 years). It implicitly differentiates from siblings by specifying address-based input, which contrasts with the other tools that use H3 cells or parcels.
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?
The description implies usage when a street address is available, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (forecast_by_h3_cell, forecast_by_parcel). No guidance on alternative scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
forecast_by_h3_cellForecast by H3 CellBInspect
Get neighborhood-level home value forecasts by H3 hex cell ID at resolution 8.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Target forecast year (default: 2026) | |
| h3_id | Yes | H3 cell ID at resolution 8, e.g. '882a100c65fffff' |
Tool Definition Quality
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 only says 'Get', which implies a read operation but does not confirm read-only behavior, return format, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. No superfluous content.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks details on return format, coverage, or limits. For a tool with two parameters and siblings, this is insufficient for complete understanding.
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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds 'neighborhood-level' context but no additional parameter details beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'home value forecasts', and specifies the input 'H3 hex cell ID at resolution 8'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the spatial unit.
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?
Usage guidance is implied by mentioning the input type ('H3 hex cell ID'), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is given relative to siblings like forecast_by_address or forecast_by_parcel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
forecast_by_parcelForecast by Parcel IDAInspect
Get lot-level home value forecasts by county tax parcel account ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| acct | Yes | County tax account / parcel ID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation ('get') and input, omitting details like side effects, data freshness, permissions, or rate limits. The description does not contradict annotations since none exist.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence of 10 words with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly efficient.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains the input and operation but does not describe the return format or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer output structure. It meets minimum viability but lacks completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema's parameter description, merely restating the purpose without enriching parameter meaning.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'home value forecasts', specifying the identifier type 'county tax parcel account ID'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings 'forecast_by_address' and 'forecast_by_h3_cell' by emphasizing the parcel-based lookup.
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?
The description implies usage when a parcel ID is available but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The sibling list exists but is not referenced in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!