Buildability

The ground around an address

site_briefing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Public records around a US street address: U.S. Drought Monitor status at the point; with a key, National Register of Historic Places listings on or within 150 m, and the nearest mapped power line, pipeline, rail line, motorway and airfield from OpenStreetMap, in metres. Each item carries its source, record and read date. Mapped, not surveyed: an easement is the title's word. Does not compute the Buildability Score.

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": {
      "property": "<property>"
    },
    "name": "site_briefing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`property`	Yes	The property being researched: a US street address, e.g. "412 Oak St, Austin, TX".
`response_format`	No	"concise" (default) leaves out factor notes and verbatim code quotes; every number keeps its source and read date. "detailed" returns them.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`items`	No
`links`	No
`locked`	No
`reason`	No
`address`	No
`available`	Yes
`distance_unit`	No
`locked_topics`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, yet the description adds genuinely new traits: tiered results depending on an API key, distances in metres, per-item source/record/read date for provenance, and the "mapped, not surveyed" reliability caveat about easements. That is real behavioral context beyond what the structured fields provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the data inventory, then escapes into caveats; every clause carries information. The clipped, telegraphic phrasing ("Mapped, not surveyed: an easement is the title's word") costs a little readability but not accuracy.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description instead supplies the things the schema cannot: key-gated coverage, units, provenance fields, and the survey-vs-map reliability boundary. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `property` and `response_format` (including its default and enum trade-off) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the address input and adds nothing about parameter format or effects, 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?

Names the resource precisely (public records around a US street address) and enumerates the concrete data items returned: drought status, NRHP listings, nearest power line/pipeline/rail/motorway/airfield. The closing line "Does not compute the Buildability Score" explicitly separates it from score_address, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

"with a key" states the gating condition for the premium layer (NRHP/OSM distances) and the last sentence excludes the scoring use case. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with flood_zone or envelope, so the agent must infer which environmental tool to prefer beyond the score exclusion.

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

All Buildability 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?