list_ownersList property owners. OwnerRez API: GET /v2/owners. Returns { items, count, limit, offset, next_page_url }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return per page (default set by OwnerRez, typically 10). | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip (for paging; combine with limit). | |
| params | No | Additional documented query-string filters to send verbatim (merged with the typed params above). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / params / additionalProperties / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / params / additionalProperties / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number",
+ "boolean"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description meets the lower bar. It still adds value by disclosing the paginated return envelope ({ items, count, limit, offset, next_page_url }), which matters because no output schema exists, though it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or default page size.
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?
Three short fragments, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.
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?
For a simple read-only list endpoint with fully documented parameters, the description plus the returned envelope is nearly enough. It stops short of mentioning available filter keys (delegated to the opaque params object) or the meaning of an 'owner' in this domain.
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 100%: limit, offset, and the free-form params bag are each documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing to parameter meaning beyond the returned envelope fields, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List property owners') and names the underlying endpoint, which unambiguously identifies the entity. It is not confused with list_properties or list_guests, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiating 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?
There is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives. The generic ownerrez_request sibling could plausibly be used for the same call, and the description gives no cue for choosing one over the other.
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.