minhamorada.pt
Server Details
Search Portuguese real estate — apartments and houses for sale or rent across all 18 districts of Portugal. Aggregates ~10,500 properties from Imovirtual, Idealista, and RE/MAX, updated weekly.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: search for properties, get property details, calculate commute, and get market stats. No overlap in functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (calculate_commute, get_property, search_properties), but market_stats is a noun_noun compound, causing a minor inconsistency.
With 4 tools, the set covers essential operations for a real estate server without being too sparse or excessive. Well-scoped for the domain.
The core workflow of searching, viewing details, and estimating commute is covered. Missing advanced features like property comparison or agent contact, but these are minor gaps.
Available Tools
4 toolscalculate_commuteARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Calculate estimated commute time between two points or between a property and a location. Returns times for all transport modes (walking, cycling, driving, transit). Based on straight-line distance with typical speeds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_lat | Yes | Destination latitude | |
| to_lng | Yes | Destination longitude | |
| from_lat | No | Starting latitude (used if property_id not provided) | |
| from_lng | No | Starting longitude (used if property_id not provided) | |
| to_label | No | Human-readable name for the destination (e.g., 'Lisbon Airport') | |
| property_id | No | Property ID to calculate commute from (alternative to from_lat/from_lng) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: returns times for all transport modes and uses straight-line distance with typical speeds. This clarifies the estimation methodology. No contradictions 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that directly convey purpose, capability, and methodology. No fluff or redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and explains the output returns times for all transport modes. However, it lacks details on output format (units, structure) which could help an agent interpret results correctly. Overall, it is mostly complete.
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%, so the schema itself documents all parameters. The description only provides a high-level context (between two points or property and location) but does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the verb 'calculate' and the resource 'estimated commute time', specifying the action and what is computed. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_property, market_stats, and search_properties by focusing solely on commute time estimation.
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 explains usage scenarios: between two points or between a property and a location. It provides alternative input methods (coordinates or property ID). It mentions it uses straight-line distance with typical speeds, implying it's an estimate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_propertyARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get full details for a specific property by ID. Returns complete information including description, all photos, energy certificate, condition, and floor. Use after search_properties to show detailed info about a property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| near_lat | No | Latitude to calculate commute times from | |
| near_lng | No | Longitude to calculate commute times from | |
| property_id | Yes | The property ID (e.g., 'imovirtual_19072237', 'idealista_34861988') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveness; description adds valuable details about returned fields (photos, energy certificate, etc.), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words; first states purpose/results, second gives usage guidance.
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?
Covers returns and workflow; missing error handling or edge cases but sufficient for a detail retrieval tool.
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 baseline 3; description does not add significant extra meaning to parameters beyond what schema provides.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves full details for a specific property by ID, distinguishing it from search_properties which is for searching.
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?
Explicitly says to use after search_properties, providing clear context for when to invoke vs. alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
market_statsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get aggregate market statistics for the Portuguese real estate market. Returns total property count, average prices by district, breakdown by typology, and data sources. Useful for questions like 'What's the average rent in Porto?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| district | No | Filter stats to a specific district | |
| price_type | No | Filter to sale or rent only |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about return values (by district, typology) but does not disclose new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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 concise: two sentences plus an example. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (count, average prices, typology breakdown, data sources). The tool has no required parameters and is well-covered by annotations.
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%. The description adds practical context by showing how parameters are used together in the example question, exceeding the baseline of 3.
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 'Get aggregate market statistics for the Portuguese real estate market' and lists specific outputs (total property count, average prices by district, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_properties which return individual listings.
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 provides an example question ('What's the average rent in Porto?') that illustrates when to use the tool. It implicitly contrasts with siblings by focusing on aggregate stats, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_propertiesARead-onlyInspect
Search for properties (apartments, houses) for sale or rent in Portugal. Returns matching properties with prices, locations, and links. Use this to help users find real estate in specific Portuguese districts, with specific budgets, or near specific locations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | No | Sort direction (default: desc) | |
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| sort | No | Sort field (default: scraped_at = newest) | |
| limit | No | Results per page, max 20 (default: 10) | |
| area_min | No | Minimum area in square meters | |
| district | No | Portuguese district name (e.g., 'Lisboa', 'Porto', 'Braga', 'Faro') | |
| near_lat | No | Latitude for proximity search | |
| near_lng | No | Longitude for proximity search | |
| typology | No | Comma-separated apartment types: T0, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5+ | |
| condition | No | Comma-separated: new, renovated, used, to_renovate | |
| price_max | No | Maximum price in EUR. Rent: 400-2000. Sale: 80000-500000. | |
| price_min | No | Minimum price in EUR | |
| has_garden | No | Filter for properties with garden/outdoor space | |
| price_type | No | Whether to search for properties to buy ('sale') or rent ('rent') | |
| has_parking | No | Filter for properties with parking | |
| has_elevator | No | Filter for properties with elevator | |
| municipality | No | Municipality/concelho within a district | |
| near_transport | No | Transport mode for commute (default: transit) | |
| near_max_minutes | No | Maximum commute time in minutes (default: 30) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnly and non-destructive. Description confirms it's a search tool that returns results. Adds detail about return content (prices, locations, links) and filters, complementing annotations.
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?
Two sentences: first states what it does, second gives usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose, efficient.
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?
With 19 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return values, and filters. Could mention pagination but schema covers page/limit. Overall complete for a search tool with good annotations.
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 has 100% description coverage with 19 parameters, each well-documented. The description adds context like typical price ranges (e.g., 'Rent: 400-2000') and example districts, enhancing understanding beyond schema.
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 it searches for properties in Portugal for sale or rent, returning prices, locations, and links. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_property (individual property) and market_stats (market data).
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?
Provides explicit use cases: 'help users find real estate in specific Portuguese districts, with specific budgets, or near specific locations.' Doesn't explicitly say when not to use, but siblings are listed for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!