Find canonical HMDA lender keys, optionally filtered by charter, state, or volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | volume_desc | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| charter | No | ||
| min_volume | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| meta | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is clear. The description adds that the tool finds keys with optional filters, but does not disclose other behaviors like result limits or sorting behavior beyond what the schema implies.
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 12-word sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. However, for a tool with 6 parameters and a nondeterministic search behavior, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, search semantics, output schema exists but is not detailed), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'canonical HMDA lender keys' means, how filtering interacts, or how to interpret results, relying too heavily on the schema.
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?
The schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage; the description mentions only three filters (charter, state, volume) via 'optionally filtered by charter, state, or volume'. It fails to explain 'sort', 'limit', 'query', or how 'min_volume' relates to volume, leaving significant gaps.
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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource as 'canonical HMDA lender keys', making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'compare_lenders' or 'get_lender_profile', which also operate on lenders.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_lender_profile' or 'compare_lenders'. It neither states prerequisites nor gives examples of appropriate contexts, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
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 target clearly distinct data domains: lender search/profile/compare cluster around HMDA lender analytics, while market snapshot, loan performance, servicer analytics, and SEC filing tools are separate. The only minor ambiguity is between get_lender_profile, compare_lenders, and search_lenders which all deal with lender keys, though their intents (search vs. profile vs. comparison) are distinct.
Tools follow a consistent get_/search_/compare_ verb pattern with clear noun targets (lenders, market_snapshot, loan_performance, sec_filing). The one deviation is that search_lenders, search_sec_filings, and compare_lenders use non-get verbs while the rest use get_, but this is a sensible pattern matching read vs. search semantics.
At 9 tools, this is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool appears to represent a meaningful consumer capability for a mortgage analytics domain. The count feels appropriately scoped without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers market data, SEC filings, lender profiles, loan performance, and servicer analytics, but there are notable gaps: there's no mutation capability (all read-oriented), no way to combine or join across these domains, and no search tool for loan performance or market data topics - those are limited to pre-bounded topics. Some domains feel like they have single query points rather than full browsing coverage.
