Property block analysis — identify buildings with multiple flat sales (block-buy opportunities).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| months | No | Number of calendar months ending today; default 24. Results are limited to available coverage. | |
| postcode | Yes | ||
| search_level | No | sector |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / months / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of calendar months ending today; default 24. Results are limited to available coverage."Input schema / properties / months / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limitRemoved value: -{
- "default": 50,
- "description": "Maximum number of blocks to return (default 50)",
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / min_transactionsRemoved value: -{
- "default": 2,
- "description": "Minimum sales per building to qualify (default 2)",
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / months / descriptionRemoved value: -"Lookback period in months (default 24)"Input schema / properties / postcode / descriptionRemoved value: -"UK postcode (e.g. \"B1 1AA\")"Input schema / properties / property_typeRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": "F",
- "description": "PPD property type filter — \"F\" for flats, None for all types (default \"F\")"
-}Input schema / properties / search_level / descriptionRemoved value: -"Search granularity — \"postcode\", \"sector\", or \"district\" (default \"sector\")"Input schema / properties / min_transactions / descriptionAdded value: +"Minimum sales per building to qualify (default 2)"Input schema / properties / months / descriptionAdded value: +"Lookback period in months (default 24)"Input schema / properties / postcode / descriptionAdded value: +"UK postcode (e.g. \"B1 1AA\")"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only nature, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds a bit of behavioral context by indicating the tool identifies buildings with multiple flat sales, but it doesn't disclose important operational traits like data coverage, required postcode format, or the meaning of 'block-buy opportunities' in the output.
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 tool's domain ('Property block analysis') and then clearly states the objective. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.
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 three parameters and an ambiguous search_level, the description leaves out essential input semantics and any usage context. Although an output schema exists, the agent still needs to understand what a block-buy opportunity looks like and how the parameters shape the analysis, none of which is explained.
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 only 33%, so all three parameters are not adequately documented in the schema. The description provides no additional meaning for 'postcode,' 'months,' or especially 'search_level' (a non-obvious parameter with default 'sector'). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 names a specific verb ('identify') and a specific resource ('buildings with multiple flat sales'), and frames the purpose as 'block-buy opportunities.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like property_comps or property_yield, which focus on valuation and yield rather than block-buy identification.
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 when to use the tool — when the user needs to spot buildings with multiple flat sales for block buying. However, it gives no explicit exclusions or guidance about when to prefer an alternative tool, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the purpose alone.
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.
EPC coverage is split across property_epc, property_epc_summaries, epc_certificate, and the deprecated property_epc_search, but each has a distinct role (aggregate lookup, candidate list, direct certificate, legacy). Land Registry data is similarly split between ppd_transactions and property_comps with clear output differences; no two tools are truly interchangeable.
Names are readable and consistently lowercase snake_case, but they mix resource nouns (epc_certificate, stamp_duty), prefixed nouns (property_epc_summaries, rightmove_listing), and noun-verb forms (company_search, planning_search). The 'search' suffix is used for different actions, and there is no uniform verb_noun pattern across the set.
14 tools is within the appropriate range for a multi-source property data API. The count is slightly padded by the deprecated property_epc_search and the narrowly scoped planning_search/company_search, but most tools cover distinct data products.
The set covers the core property workflows: Rightmove listing discovery/detail, EPC search/detail, Land Registry transactions/comps, yield/rent analysis, stamp duty, and planning portal lookup. Minor gaps exist (no planning application details, no property-level title/ownership lookup), but agents can complete common research tasks without dead ends.