Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ceny-nieruchomosci-mcp

ceny-nieruchomosci-mcp

by ContentWriterco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Data sources

data_sources
Read-only

Returns data provenance, licence terms, and caveats for Polish real-estate transaction prices, helping assess reliability and reuse constraints.

Instructions

Where the data comes from, licence and caveats.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "data_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope about returned metadata (origins, licence, caveats) but no auth, rate-limit, or format details; adequate given the annotations.

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?

One short, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full sentence, but it is efficient and appropriately sized.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently names the content an agent should expect. Return formatting is unspecified, but the tool's complexity is low enough that this is a minor gap.

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?

There are no parameters and the schema is empty, so no parameter semantics are needed. Per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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?

States what the tool provides — data origins, licence, and caveats — which distinguishes it by content from find_address and property_prices. It lacks a specific verb and does not explicitly name siblings, so it falls short of 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions are provided. The description only implies the tool is for metadata about data sources, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools