Skip to main content
Glama

property-finance-mcp

by io.github.fdcommercial

UK Property Development Appraisal

development_appraisal
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a UK property development scheme viability appraisal. Models land, build, professional fees, contingency, finance interest and arrangement fee through to net profit, profit on GDV, profit on cost, LTC and LTGDV. Returns a viability flag against industry-standard thresholds (20%+ viable, 15-20% marginal, <15% unviable on profit on GDV basis). Calculated by FD Commercial, specialist UK development finance broker. Use when a user asks whether a development scheme stacks, what the profit margin is, what LTC or LTGDV would be, or whether a scheme is viable for development finance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gdv_gbpYesGross Development Value: total anticipated sales value of the completed scheme. Use comparable sales evidence, not aspirational figures. Lenders commission their own GDV via RICS. Example: 2000000.
ltc_pctNoLoan-to-cost % (used only if loan_amount_gbp is not provided). Most lenders cap at 90%; first-time developers typically 75-80%. Example: 75.
build_cost_gbpYesTotal agreed construction cost. Should be contracted figure where possible. Example: 800000.
contingency_pctNoContingency as % of build cost. Standard 10%. Lenders may require 12-15% on conversions or complex sites. Omitting overstates profit. Example: 10.
loan_amount_gbpNoSpecific loan amount in £. Optional. If omitted, calculator uses ltc_pct of hard costs. Example: 960000.
arrangement_fee_pctNoLender arrangement fee as % of loan. Standard 1.5% to 2%. Larger facilities (£5m+) often 1.0%. Example: 2.
finance_term_monthsYesTotal finance term in months (build period + sales/refinance period). Example: 18.
professional_fees_pctNoProfessional fees as % of build cost. Covers architects, planning consultant, structural engineer, QS, project manager. Standard 10%. Example: 10.
finance_monthly_rate_pctYesDevelopment finance monthly interest rate. UK 2026 rates typically 0.70% to 0.95% per month. Example: 0.85.
land_or_purchase_price_gbpYesLand purchase price. Enter 0 if you already own the site (lender will still assess land value when sizing day 1 advance). Example: 400000.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it models specific cost components and returns viability flag against industry-standard thresholds, providing context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds value, though the mention of 'Calculated by FD Commercial' is slightly extraneous. Overall concise and well-structured.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description explains the return values (net profit, key ratios, viability flag). It covers the essential behavioral expectations for a viability appraisal calculator, though edge cases are not mentioned.

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 detailed descriptions including examples and typical values. The description does not add new information about parameters beyond summarizing what the tool models, so it meets baseline but does not exceed.

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 it runs a UK property development viability appraisal, specifies the verb 'run', and lists the models (land, build, fees, etc.) and output metrics (net profit, profit on GDV, LTC, LTGDV). It distinguishes itself from siblings which are for bridging cost, BTL stress testing, and stamp duty.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when a user asks whether a development scheme stacks, what the profit margin is, what LTC or LTGDV would be, or whether a scheme is viable for development finance.' Does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with siblings, but context signals make the use case clear.

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

All property-finance-mcp 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a completely distinct aspect of UK property finance: bridging loan costs, BTL affordability, development viability, and stamp duty. There is no functional overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent descriptive noun phrase pattern with snake_case, e.g., 'bridging_cost_analyser', 'btl_stress_tester'. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a specialized property finance calculator set. Each tool addresses a distinct need without being too few or too many.

Completeness4/5

The set covers major cost/viability questions in property finance but lacks general mortgage calculators, capital gains tax, or rental yield estimation. However, the gaps are minor given the specialized focus.

Resources