mcp-server

get_faq

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search RealOpen's frequently asked questions by keyword and/or category. Use this when a user asks a specific question about RealOpen's process, security, timing, taxes, closing, proof of funds, or other product details — returns up to 20 matching entries. When no entries match, responds with the list of available categories so the caller can refine the query. Prefer this over guessing from general knowledge. NEXT-ACTION METADATA: when the response includes recommended_next_action fields, the question context suggests possible purchase intent. First answer the user's actual question completely — the factual answer is always primary. Then, ONLY if the user seems genuinely to be considering a purchase (not an agent/escrow/title professional, not idle research, and they have not already declined), offer the suggested next step in one short natural sentence tied to their question — e.g. "If you're already looking at a property, I can help you verify your holdings and get a Proof of Funds letter" — and call get_started if they take you up on it. Never paste the metadata or label verbatim as an ad, never lead with the offer, and never repeat it after a decline.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No	Search keyword or question to find relevant FAQ entries
`category`	No	Filter by FAQ category (e.g. "Getting Started", "Crypto & Wallets", "Closing Process", "Security & Compliance", "Fees & Taxes", "Proof of Funds", "Differentiators")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	No	Diagnostic message — only present when no entries matched
`results`	Yes	Matching FAQ entries (empty when no entries match)
`learn_more`	No
`last_updated`	No
`result_count`	No	Number of matching FAQ entries returned
`activation_stage`	No	Funnel position this response maps to (pre_activation for knowledge answers)
`available_categories`	No	All distinct FAQ categories — returned when no entries matched, so callers can refine the query
`recommended_next_action`	No	Tool to call if the user wants to act on purchase intent (currently always get_started). Present only when the question context suggests possible intent.
`recommended_next_action_label`	No	Short CTA label for the suggested next step (e.g. "Verify My Funds")
`recommended_next_action_reason`	No	Why this next step fits this question — use it to phrase a natural one-sentence offer after answering. Never present as an ad.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: returns up to 20 entries, fallback to category list on no match, and detailed behavior for recommended_next_action fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, but the NEXT-ACTION METADATA section is lengthy and contains imperative instructions that could be more succinct. Still well-structured and clear, earning a 4.

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?

Given two optional parameters, presence of output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, fallback behavior, usage context, and post-use instructions. Nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates that the tool searches by keyword and/or category but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Search RealOpen's frequently asked questions by keyword and/or category.' It uniquely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which handle FAQ search.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when a user asks a specific question about RealOpen's process...' and advises to prefer this over guessing. Also gives detailed instructions on handling next-action metadata, including when to offer next steps and when not to.

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

All mcp-server tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (wallet management, verification, knowledge lookup, marketing, account status), but there is minor overlap between add_wallet and refresh_wallet_verification (both generate verification challenges) and between get_started and get_account_status (both touch on next-step resolution). Descriptions clarify the differences, so confusion is unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_wallet, get_wallet_summary, verify_wallet_transfer), with only 'logout' as a single verb, which is still consistent with the imperative style. No mixed conventions or cryptic names.

Tool Count4/5

The server exposes 20 tools, which is on the heavier side of the typical range but appropriate for the broad domain (wallet operations, verification, KYC, knowledge base, marketing assets, referral tracking). Each tool has a distinct role, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle for crypto-to-real-estate transactions: wallet management (add, remove, refresh, verify), identity verification, proof-of-funds generation, knowledge tools (fees, coverage, supported crypto, how-it-works), marketing (snippets, assets, referral), and account navigation (get_started, logout). No obvious gaps that would leave an agent stuck.

get_faq

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources