Realty In Ca1 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description omits critical behavioral details: pagination limits (max 50 records per page per the schema), that it performs geographic searches, and what data is returned (no output schema exists). It doesn't mention rate limits or whether results are cached.

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 extremely concise (single sentence, 9 words) with no redundancy. However, given the high complexity (30 parameters, geographic search paradigm, no output schema), it is arguably undersized rather than appropriately sized, preventing a score of 5.

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 tool with 30 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits the geographic nature of the search (critical since Latitude/Longitude bounds are the only required parameters), pagination behavior, and return value structure. While the schema descriptions are thorough, the high-level description fails to orient the user to the tool's bounding-box search paradigm.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema itself documents all 30 parameters comprehensively (e.g., BedRange syntax, CultureId values). The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond the schema, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 action (List) and resource (residential properties), and distinguishes from siblings like 'propertieslist_commercial' by specifying 'residential' and 'both for rent and for sale'. However, it fails to mention the geographic bounding box search paradigm, which is the tool's primary interface (all 4 required parameters are coordinates).

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 siblings like 'propertieslist_by_mls' (which searches by MLS number) or 'propertiesdetail' (which gets specific property details). It also fails to mention prerequisites, such as requiring geographic coordinates to perform a search.

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