Realty In Ca1 MCP Server

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 but fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if pagination is supported, potential rate limits, or what happens when an invalid MLS number is provided. The term 'List' implies read-only behavior but lacks explicit confirmation of safety.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. However, given the complete lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves significant contextual gaps that could have been addressed with minimal additional text (e.g., 'Safe read-only operation').

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description provides the minimum viable context for basic invocation. However, without annotations or output schema, the omission of behavioral traits (read-only status, error handling) and usage guidance against siblings leaves the description functionally incomplete for safe agent operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with ReferenceNumber and CultureId fully documented. The description mentions 'listing ID or MLS number' which aligns with the ReferenceNumber parameter, but adds no semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 (List) and resource (properties) with specific scope (by listing ID or MLS number). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'propertiesdetail' which might also accept property identifiers, creating potential ambiguity about when to use list vs detail operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'propertiesdetail' or the other list functions ('propertieslist_residential', 'propertieslist_commercial'). It does not specify prerequisites, expected input formats beyond the schema, or error scenarios.

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