Skip to main content
Glama

Property Records

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Property Coverage

property_coverage
Read-onlyIdempotent

The capability matrix for property_lookup: every county and city this pack can answer address-level property-record questions for, and exactly which fields each one publishes — sales history (and whether it includes a price), owner name, assessed value, physical characteristics — plus the data vintage, refresh cadence, per-jurisdiction caveats, and the upstream source URL. Use this before promising a user an answer, to check whether their county is in the dataset and whether the specific field they asked about (sale price, owner, bed/bath) actually exists there. US property records are county-maintained and there is no national keyless source, so this list is the whole supported set. Example: {} → 5 jurisdictions, of which 4 publish sale prices and 4 publish owner names.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jurisdictionNoOptional. Return detail for one jurisdiction only: dc | nyc | philadelphia | cook | sf.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {}
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) by detailing what information is returned (market matrix, sales history price inclusion, owner name, assessed value, physical characteristics) and adding caveats about data vintage, refresh cadence, per-jurisdiction nuances, and source URLs. The example also clarifies default behavior with empty input.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although the description is relatively long, every sentence earns its place: it defines the tool, lists content, gives usage timing, explains the domain constraint, and provides a concrete example. The information is front-loaded with 'capability matrix for property_lookup' and flows logically to the usage guidance and example.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (jurisdiction list, field-level availability, vintage, cadence, caveats, source URL). It also covers the important domain context and when to use it. The single optional parameter is simple, and the example clarifies the no-argument case, making the description complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully documents the optional jurisdiction parameter with allowed values (dc | nyc | philadelphia | cook | sf), so schema coverage is high. The description adds value by showing the default behavior via 'Example: {} → 5 jurisdictions' and explaining that the result lists all supported jurisdictions when no parameter is given.

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 identifies this tool as the 'capability matrix for property_lookup' and enumerates exactly what it contains: county/city coverage, per-field availability, data vintage, refresh cadence, caveats, and source URL. This specific verb+resource pairing and scope make it distinct from sibling property_lookup and other tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use this before promising a user an answer' to verify county and field availability. It also gives context about US property records being county-maintained and no national source, implying this tool is the prerequisite coverage check before performing an actual lookup via property_lookup.

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

All Property Records 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants of the same router, and there are six polymarket-related tools with overlapping arb/edge/fill-risk purposes. Property-specific tools are distinct but buried among many unrelated meta-tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the structural pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), others noun_verb (property_lookup), and many are noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage). No clear systematic convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far too many for a server labeled 'Property Records'—only two tools (property_lookup, property_coverage) actually serve that purpose. The rest belong to unrelated domains (general data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For a property-records server, the surface is incomplete: it only provides lookup plus a coverage matrix, with no other property-related operations (e.g., tax history, comparable sales) and no way to handle unsupported jurisdictions beyond a simple flag. The unrelated tools do not contribute to the stated domain, leaving the core purpose thinly covered.

Resources