Skip to main content
Glama

Cenogram - Polish Real Estate Data

get_transaction_nature

Read-only

Get the parcel-by-parcel nature breakdown for one transaction: for each linked plot with a nature signal — the nearest forest within 2 km (forest_distance_m in metres, 0 = the plot overlaps forest, with its overlap share) and any overlapping protected natural areas: the sharpest form (protection_rank 1 = national park, 2 = nature reserve, 3 = Natura 2000, 4 = landscape park, 5 = protected landscape, 6 = other), building_restriction ('statutory_ban' = a build ban that follows directly from the Nature Protection Act for national parks and reserves, 'conditional' = restrictions depend on the act that established the area), the share of the plot under protection, and the named areas. This describes the SOURCE of a restriction (statute vs the establishing act), never the outcome of a specific permitting case, and is not legal advice. Forest is an amenity signal (proximity), protected areas a due-diligence one (build limits). Search results do not carry a nature signal, so call this tool directly on a transaction id whenever forest proximity or protected-area build limits matter. Use it after a search on land plots. For a parcel with no transaction, get_parcel_report names the protected areas in its nature section. An empty result is NEVER a statement that building is allowed — this layer does not cover local zoning plans, planning-permission decisions or areas under designation. A buffer zone around a park or reserve IS reported, as form 'buffer_zone' at rank 6, and never as a statutory ban. An empty result also says which kind of empty it is: either the plots were checked and carry no signal, or no nature reference data is held for them yet and nothing was checked — the second is never a finding that there is no forest or protected area. Cost: 4 tokens (refunded on any empty result).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transaction_idYesTransaction id (UUID) from a search_transactions / search_by_area / search_by_polygon result.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered, yet the description adds substantial independent context: enum meanings for protection_rank and building_restriction, that a buffer zone is reported as rank 6 and never as a statutory ban, that results describe the source of a restriction not a permitting outcome, the two distinct kinds of empty result, and a cost of 4 tokens refunded on empty results. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the caveats (empty-result semantics, buffer zones, disclaimers, cost) each carry decision-relevant information. The first sentence is a long run-on packed with parentheticals, which slightly hurts readability, but almost every sentence earns its place for a tool with no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does so field by field (forest_distance_m, protection_rank scale, building_restriction values, protection share, named areas). Combined with empty-result semantics, disclaimers, and cost, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents transaction_id (UUID pattern, provenance from search results). The description only reinforces that it is called directly on a transaction id, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource (parcel-by-parcel nature breakdown for one transaction) and enumerates exactly what is returned: nearest forest distance and overlapping protected areas. It also distinguishes itself from get_parcel_report ('For a parcel with no transaction, get_parcel_report names the protected areas'). An agent can separate this tool from its siblings without opening a schema.

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 states when to use it ('call this tool directly on a transaction id whenever forest proximity or protected-area build limits matter'), positions it in a workflow ('Use it after a search on land plots'), and routes the no-transaction case to get_parcel_report. Alternatives and conditions are explicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources