restore_property_resultsUse this when the PropFácil app needs to restore the latest public property selection for the current MCP session after its widget is recreated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| render | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the trigger context but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., behavior when no previous selection exists) or any side effects beyond the restoration itself. It adds moderate value beyond annotations.
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 with no unnecessary detail or redundancy. It fully conveys the tool's purpose and condition without wordiness.
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 description provides the main scenario and purpose. While it does not cover edge cases like absence of prior selection, the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema mean the description is adequately complete for its scope.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%. According to the baseline rule for zero-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain parameters.
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 action (restore), the resource (latest public property selection), and the context (current MCP session after widget recreation). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search or get by targeting a session-specific restoration.
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?
Explicitly provides the trigger condition ('after its widget is recreated') and context ('needs to restore the latest public property selection'). Does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition is clear enough.
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.