property-search

Book a property valuation appointment

request_valuation

Book a free in-person property valuation with a local OpenMoov agent, for owners thinking of selling (valuation_type "sales") or letting ("lettings"). Requires the user's real name, email, phone, the property's UK address (house name/number, street, city, postcode) and a preferred appointment date (YYYY-MM-DD, must be in the future, within 180 days) and time (HH:mm, 08:00–20:00 UK time). The appointment is provisional until the local agent confirms it by email. Creates a real lead — only call with genuine user details and explicit intent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "first_name": "<first_name>",
      "last_name": "<last_name>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "phone": "<phone>",
      "address": "<address>",
      "appointment_date": "<appointment_date>",
      "appointment_time": "<appointment_time>",
      "valuation_type": "<valuation_type>"
    },
    "name": "request_valuation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes
`phone`	Yes
`address`	Yes
`last_name`	Yes
`first_name`	Yes
`valuation_type`	Yes	"sales" if the owner may sell, "lettings" if they may let
`appointment_date`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD, future, within 180 days
`appointment_time`	Yes	HH:mm, between 08:00 and 20:00

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes well beyond by explaining that this creates a real lead, that the appointment is provisional until the local agent confirms by email, and that genuine user intent is required. It does not describe failure modes such as unavailable slots or what happens on rejection, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by requirements and the lead-creation warning. Requirements are packed into a single long sentence, which is efficient but slightly harder to scan than a short structured list.

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 non-idempotent, open-world write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: that a real lead is created, that confirmation is asynchronous by email, and that provisional state is expected. An agent has enough to decide whether to call and what to tell the user afterwards.

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?

With only 38% schema description coverage across 8 required parameters, the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates every required field group, maps valuation_type values to owner intent, and adds UK-local context ("UK address", "UK time") that the schema does not. Date/time format and bounds largely restate the schema, so it is not a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Book a free in-person property valuation") plus the provider context ("local OpenMoov agent"), so an agent knows exactly what action is being taken. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling instant_valuation, which is the most likely point of confusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear audience and trigger conditions ("owners thinking of selling" / "letting") and a strong gating rule ("only call with genuine user details and explicit intent"). It never names the obvious alternative (instant_valuation) or explains when to prefer it, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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

All property-search 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.

Resources

Need Help?