@achi/drive-mcp

list_nk_settlements

Fetch NK settlements for a unit and year; returns two rows if tenant moved out mid-year.

Instructions

List tenant NK settlements for an apartment and year. Mid-year move-out → two rows, not one.

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": {
      "unitId": "<unitId>"
    },
    "name": "list_nk_settlements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	No
`unitId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses one non-obvious behavior (mid-year move-out yields two rows), which is useful, but it omits other important behavioral details such as auth requirements, response structure, or error conditions. Some transparency exists, but it is limited.

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 with zero filler. The edge case is packed into a second sentence efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide a complete picture. It gives purpose and a nuance, but does not explain what the returned rows contain, how to interpret the two-row case, or whether additional parameters are needed. For a 2-parameter list, this is insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely references 'apartment and year', not mapping to unitId and year. It does not explain what an NK settlement is, or what the year means beyond schema min/max. With no param descriptions in schema, the description fails to compensate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tenant NK settlements') with clear scope ('for an apartment and year'). The added note about mid-year move-out producing two rows further distinguishes this from a generic list. It is clear even without naming a sibling alternative.

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 on when to use this tool versus other tools, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The edge case about move-out is behavioral, not usage direction. An agent gets no context about when this is the right choice.

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