mcp-server

get_service_areas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return where a buyer can currently use crypto to buy real estate through RealOpen — geographic coverage, supported property types, and international availability. Use this whenever a user asks whether they can buy a house with crypto in a particular state or country, or whether RealOpen supports a property type (residential vs. commercial, primary vs. investment, etc.). 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
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sections`	Yes
`learn_more`	No
`last_updated`	No
`activation_stage`	No	Funnel position this response maps to (pre_activation for knowledge answers)
`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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedAug 18, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / activation_stage

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Funnel position this response maps to (pre_activation for knowledge answers)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / recommended_next_action

Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / recommended_next_action_label

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Short CTA label for the suggested next step (e.g. \"Verify My Funds\")",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / recommended_next_action_reason

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Why this next step fits this question — use it to phrase a natural one-sentence offer after answering. Never present as an ad.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "last_updated": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "learn_more": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sections": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "content": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "title",
+          "content"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "sections"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedApr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description goes well beyond this by disclosing that the response may include recommended_next_action fields, that these indicate possible purchase intent, and how the agent should handle them—including when not to offer the next step. This is meaningful behavioral context not present in the 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 first sentence is tightly scoped and front-loaded with the core purpose. The NEXT-ACTION METADATA section is longer and reads more like an operational policy than a pure tool description, but every sentence serves a real purpose. It is slightly verbose relative to the tool's simple parameter surface, though not redundant.

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?

For a zero-parameter, annotated read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what data is returned, when to invoke the tool, and how to handle the metadata in the response. No critical operational gap remains.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. There is no parameter-level meaning for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description focuses appropriately on the returned information instead of inventing non-existent parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete resource: where a buyer can use crypto to buy real estate through RealOpen. It names the exact dimensions of the answer (geographic coverage, supported property types, international availability), which clearly differentiates it from a sibling like get_supported_crypto and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this whenever a user asks whether they can buy a house with crypto in a particular state or country, or whether RealOpen supports a property type.' It does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it falls short of the 5-level, but the context is clear and actionable.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.