real-estate-data-mcp-server

compare_areas

Compare housing metrics such as median home value, rent, income, population, and affordability across multiple US areas side by side.

Instructions

Compare housing metrics for multiple US areas side-by-side.

Compares median home value, rent, income, population, and affordability for 2-5 different locations.

Args: locations: List of location dicts, each with 'state' (required) and optional 'county' FIPS code. Example: [{"state": "CA"}, {"state": "TX", "county": "201"}]

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": {
      "locations": "<locations>"
    },
    "name": "compare_areas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`locations`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses metrics compared and number of locations (2-5), but omits behavior on invalid locations, schema permissiveness (additionalProperties: true), and data freshness. Adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two short paragraphs: first states core purpose, second lists metrics, third describes argument with example. Efficient, no wasted words, but could benefit from bullet points for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, metrics, and parameter structure moderately well. Lacks guidance on state format, county FIPS range, limit enforcement, and output format (though output schema exists). Sibling tools exist but no cross-reference.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no property descriptions). Description compensates well: explains locations parameter as list of dicts with required 'state' and optional 'county' FIPS, plus provides an example. Still missing exact format for state and county FIPS.

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?

Clearly states it compares housing metrics for multiple US areas side-by-side (median home value, rent, income, population, affordability). Distinguishes from siblings by explicitly targeting multi-area comparison.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tool's purpose implies when to use (comparing multiple areas), but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. For instance, does not mention that for single-area data siblings like get_housing_stats or get_cost_of_living are more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server