Realty In Au MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have clear domains (agencies, agents, properties, schools) with distinct actions like detail, list, and get_listings, reducing major confusion. However, the three lookup tools (propertieslookup_deprecated, propertiesv2lookup_deprecated, propertiesv3lookup) overlap significantly in purpose, as they all search for off-market properties by ID, which could cause misselection despite versioning differences noted in descriptions.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent noun_verb or noun_action pattern (e.g., agencydetail, agentslist, propertieslist), making them predictable and readable. The main deviation is auto_complete, which uses a different style, and the lookup tools have inconsistent versioning suffixes (v2, v3, _deprecated), but overall the naming is largely uniform and functional.
Tool Count5/5
With 13 tools, the count is well-scoped for a realty server covering agencies, agents, properties, and schools. Each tool appears to serve a specific purpose within this domain, such as listing, detailing, and searching, without feeling overly sparse or bloated, aligning well with typical server scopes of 3-15 tools.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides good coverage for core realty operations, including CRUD-like actions for agencies, agents, properties, and schools (e.g., list and detail functions). Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit update or delete tools, but agents can likely work around this given the server's focus on data retrieval and search, as suggested by tools like auto_complete and lookup functions.
Average 2.7/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get listings' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'pageSize' but not explained), error handling, or what the output looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get listings of an agency') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, missing context that could aid understanding without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, pagination details, or behavioral constraints (e.g., authentication). While the schema covers parameters well, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate more to ensure the agent can use it correctly, which it fails to do.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'channel' and 'timeframe' enums, 'agencyId' source). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships (e.g., 'timeframe' only works with 'SOLD') or usage tips. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get listings of an agency' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('listings of an agency'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'listings' entails (e.g., property listings, job listings) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'agentsget_listings' or 'propertieslist', leaving ambiguity in scope and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an agencyId from 'agencylist'), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'agentsget_listings' or 'propertieslist', leaving the agent to infer usage from parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'options and filters' but fails to describe key behaviors like pagination handling, sorting effects, or output format. For a list tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's front-loaded but lacks detail, making it somewhat under-specified rather than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
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 the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering capabilities, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List agency with options and filters' states the verb ('List') and resource ('agency'), but it's vague about what 'agency' refers to (e.g., real estate agencies, government agencies) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'agentslist' or 'propertieslist'. It lacks specificity in scope or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'agentslist' or 'propertieslist', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The description only hints at 'options and filters' without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens on errors (e.g., invalid ID). The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, but it could be more front-loaded with key details (e.g., specifying it's for retrieving a single agent by ID). It earns a 4 for being concise, though it borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., contact info, listings, performance metrics), which is crucial for an agent to understand the return value. With no output schema, the description should compensate by outlining expected data, but it fails to do so.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'The value of id field returned in .../agents/list endpoint'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting. No compensation is needed given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get agent detailed information' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('agent detailed information'), but it's vague about what constitutes 'detailed information' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'agentslist' or 'agentsget_listings'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an agent ID from another endpoint), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'agentslist' for listing agents or 'agentsget_listings' for other agent-related data. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose aspects like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—it could benefit from more detail to be truly helpful, but as written, it's structurally sound and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the resource type (e.g., property listings), output format, or behavioral traits like pagination. With no annotations to fill gaps, the description fails to provide enough context for effective use.
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 the schema fully documents all parameters (page, channel, linkedSalespeopleIds, pageSize). The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., that linkedSalespeopleIds is required and filters listings by agent) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get listings of an agent' states the basic action (get) and resource (listings of an agent), but it's vague about what 'listings' specifically refers to (e.g., property listings, contact listings). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'agentslist' (which might list agents themselves) or 'propertieslist' (which might list properties generally), leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain how it differs from 'agentslist' (which might list agents) or 'propertieslist' (which might list properties without agent filtering), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing agent IDs from another endpoint. The description lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'options and filters' but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format). This is inadequate for a tool with 20 parameters and no output schema.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning key aspects like pagination or filtering scope to improve clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (20 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively. More detail is needed to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
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 the schema fully documents all 20 parameters with descriptions, defaults, and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering capabilities, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List properties with options and filters' clearly indicates a listing operation on properties, but it's vague about what 'options and filters' entail and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'propertiesdetail' or 'propertiesv3lookup'. It states the basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about scope or distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'propertiesdetail' for individual properties or 'propertiesv3lookup' for other property operations. The description implies filtering capabilities but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'off-market property', hinting at a specific data scope, but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only lookup, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error handling, or what 'deprecated' implies (e.g., limited support, alternative tools). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly noting the 'deprecated' status or key limitations, but it remains appropriately concise for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a lookup with deprecated status, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, deprecation implications, and how it differs from sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide effective use, but it falls short.
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%, with the 'id' parameter well-documented in the schema (including a default value and source context). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format constraints or usage tips. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Look for') and resource ('off-market property'), but is vague about scope and mechanism. It doesn't specify what 'look for' entails (e.g., retrieve details, check existence) or how it differs from siblings like 'propertiesdetail' or 'propertiesv3lookup'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity for clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'propertiesdetail' (likely for general property details) and 'propertiesv3lookup' (a newer version), the description offers no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., only for off-market properties). This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what 'around' entails (e.g., default radius). This leaves gaps for safe invocation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for reliable agent use despite low complexity.
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 the schema fully documents parameters (lat, lon). The description adds minimal value by implying geo-based filtering but doesn't provide additional context like coordinate formats or usage examples beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List schools around a GEO location' clearly states the action (list) and resource (schools), but it's vague about scope (e.g., radius, limit) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'propertieslist' or 'agentslist'. It avoids tautology by specifying 'around a GEO location'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get agency detailed information' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the information returns, whether there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid agency IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words: 'Get agency detailed information.' Every word earns its place - 'Get' specifies the action, 'agency' identifies the resource, and 'detailed information' distinguishes it from summary views. There's zero waste or redundancy in this minimal but complete phrase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context of a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, what format it returns, or provide any examples. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about agencies, more context about the return value would be helpful since there's no output schema to guide the agent.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'agencyId' well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid agency ID, where to find them, or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get agency detailed information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('agency detailed information'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'agencylist' or 'agentsdetail' - it's unclear what 'detailed information' means compared to what other tools provide. The description is functional but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'agencylist', 'agentsdetail', 'propertiesdetail', and others, there's no indication whether this is for retrieving a single agency's full profile versus summary information, or whether it should be used before/after other agency-related tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for getting information, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format might be. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and usage context. For a tool with one parameter and high schema coverage, the description should provide more guidance on when and how to use it, especially with multiple sibling tools available.
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?
The description does not mention parameters, but the input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the 'id' parameter's purpose and sources.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Get detailed information of a property'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('property'), but lacks specificity about what 'detailed information' entails. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'propertieslist' or 'propertiesv3lookup', which might also retrieve property data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an ID from other endpoints, or compare it to siblings like 'propertieslist' for listing properties or 'propertiesv3lookup' for lookup operations. Without such context, usage is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a successful response. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place - 'List' (action), 'agents' (resource), 'with options and filters' (capabilities). No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (agent objects? summaries?), how results are structured, error conditions, or the relationship between filtering parameters. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself provides insufficient context for proper tool selection and invocation.
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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming filtering/options exist. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, default behaviors, or provide usage examples that would enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('agents'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'agentsdetail' or 'agentsget_listings', which would require more specific scope information to earn 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'agentsdetail' (for individual agent details) or 'agentsget_listings' (for agent listings). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns suggestions and mentions data usage with another endpoint, but fails to describe key traits: whether it's read-only, how it handles errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of returned suggestions. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, the second sentence about endpoint usage is somewhat vague ('.../properties/list endpoint') and could be more specific. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though not perfectly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a query tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and behavioral traits. While it hints at a workflow with another endpoint, this is insufficient for the agent to fully understand tool behavior and integration. More context is needed for adequate completeness.
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?
The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'query' parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'Any term or phrase...'). The description only mentions 'term or phrase' without providing additional context, syntax, or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get suggestions by term or phrase.' This specifies the verb ('Get suggestions') and the resource ('term or phrase'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'propertieslist' or 'propertiesv3lookup', which might also involve querying properties, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions that returned data is used with another endpoint ('.../properties/list endpoint'), implying a workflow context. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'propertieslist' or 'propertiesv3lookup'), or exclusions. This leaves the agent with little direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'off-market property', hinting at data scope, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only lookup, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or errors, or what 'look for' entails (e.g., search vs. fetch). The description is minimal and misses key operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Look for off-market property by id'. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is clear and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter (1 param with 100% coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. For a lookup tool, users need to know what data is returned and any constraints, which are missing here.
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%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema (type, default, description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating it's used 'by id', which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Look for') and resource ('off-market property'), specifying it's by 'id'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'propertieslist' (list all) and 'propertiesdetail' (likely general details), but doesn't explicitly contrast with deprecated 'propertieslookup_deprecated' or 'propertiesv2lookup_deprecated'. The purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for off-market properties by ID, but doesn't state when to choose it over 'propertiesdetail' (which might handle on-market) or the deprecated lookup tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is deprecated and suggests an alternative, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose what 'look for' entails operationally (e.g., read-only vs. mutation, error handling, or data format). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: one states the purpose, the other gives critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the deprecation warning is front-loaded with an asterisk for emphasis. No wasted text.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers key aspects: purpose and deprecation. However, for a lookup tool, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or what 'off-market' means contextually. It's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.
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 the schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for off-market properties, which is already suggested by the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Look for off-market property by id' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'look for' means (search, retrieve, check existence?). It distinguishes from the alternative endpoint mentioned, but doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like propertiesdetail or propertiesv3lookup. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
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?
The description explicitly provides when NOT to use this tool: '* Use .../properties/v2/lookup endpoint instead for more data returned.' This gives clear guidance to prefer an alternative for richer data, making it excellent for agent decision-making despite the tool being deprecated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bachai-realty-in-au MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-realty-in-au/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-realty-in-au)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bachai-realty-in-au MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-realty-in-au/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-realty-in-au)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-realty-in-au'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server