get_property_listUse this when an authenticated user wants to inspect one of their PropFácil favorite lists and its saved properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listId | Yes | Identifier of a favorite list owned by the authenticated user. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | Yes | ||
| items | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds ownership and authentication context ('authenticated user', 'their ... favorite lists') and clarifies the return scope ('its saved properties'), which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint and reinforces the non-destructive nature.
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 that is tightly focused and front-loaded with the usage condition. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 the simple parameter set, the presence of an output schema, and informative annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It fully covers the essential context for a read-only single-resource lookup.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the schema already documents listId clearly. The description adds little beyond what the schema states, 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 tool is for inspecting a single PropFácil favorite list and its saved properties, using a specific verb ('inspect') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_property_lists, which lists lists, and get_property, which fetches a property.
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 says to use it when an authenticated user wants to inspect one of their favorite lists and saved properties, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of perfect guidance.
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.
Most tools have a distinct resource-action pair, making selection generally clear. The main ambiguity is between get_property_list and list_property_lists, both of which involve favorite lists and could be confused by an agent despite different singular/plural meanings.
The majority of tools follow a snake_case action_noun pattern like search_properties, save_property_to_list, and rename_property_list. The exceptions are my_listings, which uses a possessive noun with no verb, plus get_property_contact and restore_property_results, which slightly break the otherwise consistent pattern.
Thirteen tools is a well-scoped set for a property search, listing publication, and favorite-list management server. Each tool supports a concrete workflow or user intent, with no obvious duplicated or filler tools.
The favorite-list workflows are reasonably complete, but there are notable lifecycle gaps: property listings can be published and searched but not updated, delisted, or deleted, and there is no explicit create-list operation for naming custom lists beyond the default behavior. This creates awkward workarounds for some common user requests.