Contract risk assessment: analyze proposed clauses (financing contingency, inspection, future value terms) and return risk score with deal-breakers. | 契約リスク評価。提案中の契約条項を分析しリスクスコアとディールブレーカーを返す。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ward | Yes | 名古屋市の区名 | |
| chochou | No | 町丁目名 | |
| proposedTerms | Yes | 提案中の契約条項（JSON 形式） |
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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavior that it returns a risk score and deal-breakers, which is the core functionality. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as how the score is computed, whether location parameters matter, or any limitations. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal extra context, earning a 3.
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, information-dense sentence front-loaded with the purpose and specific parameters. It is free of filler and provides the essential information in a compact form. The addition of a Japanese translation is a minor structural duplication but does not detract from its conciseness. It earns a 5 for efficiency and clarity.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, one nested object) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately states the input (proposed clauses) and output (risk score + deal-breakers). It does not explain how the location parameters (ward, chochou) factor into the assessment, nor does it mention any prerequisites, but the schema covers the parameters and the purpose is clear. Considering the sibling landscape, it could benefit from noting when to use this versus 'assess_property_risk', but that is already covered under usage guidelines. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, so a 4 is justified.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing concrete clause types ('financing contingency, inspection, future value terms') that clarify what should go into the 'proposedTerms' object, which the schema only describes generically as '提案中の契約条項（JSON 形式）'. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent populate the parameter correctly. It does not elaborate on 'ward' or 'chochou', but those are self-explanatory with their own schema descriptions, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific action ('analyze proposed clauses') and resource ('contract risk'), and specifies the output (risk score and deal-breakers). It goes beyond a tautology by naming example clause types (financing contingency, inspection, future value terms). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'assess_property_risk', which could be confused; thus not a 5.
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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools like 'assess_property_risk' or 'generate_contract_support_package'. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, so it fails to provide actionable direction for selection.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., analyze_renovation_yield vs recommend_renovation_targets, multiple scoring functions). While descriptions provide some differentiation, an agent could easily confuse tools like assess_property_risk, assess_family_friendly_score, and composite_value_score, all of which aggregate multiple axes into a single score.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (analyze_, assess_, get_, simulate_, etc.), but a few deviate with noun phrases (composite_value_score, portfolio_optimizer, scenario_what_if) or adjective-led names (quick_visual_summary). The pattern is largely consistent with minor exceptions, making it predictable overall.
With 33 tools, the surface is quite heavy and exceeds the 25-tool threshold. While the server covers a broad domain (real estate analysis, simulation, contract review, reporting), many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple scoring functions). The count feels overwhelming for an agent to manage efficiently, though the scope is comprehensive.
The tool set covers the primary workflows of real estate intel: search/discovery, data retrieval, scoring, simulation, reporting, and contract support. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct property transaction listing lookup or lease-specific analysis), but these are not core to the server's stated purpose. The lifecycle of analysis is well-supported.