Skip to main content
Glama
Evlek

Evlek — Northern Cyprus Property MCP Server

Official
by Evlek
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Compare Evlek Property Listings Side-by-Side

compare_properties
Read-only

Compare 2-4 active Evlek sale or rent listings of the same type. View asking price, size, and £/m² differences side by side.

Instructions

Compare descriptive facts from 2-4 active Evlek sale or long-term-rent listings of the same type. Shows advertised asking price, size and £/m² differences without making a value, suitability, appraisal, or investment judgment. The legacy listing_ids parameter name is still accepted as an alias of listingIds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listingIdsYesEvlek listing UUIDs or listing numbers (2-4)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
missingNo
listingsYes
dataSourceNo
isEstimateNo
metricTypeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv2.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / listingIds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Evlek listing UUIDs or listing numbers (2-4)",
+  "items": {
+    "description": "Evlek listing UUID or listing number (e.g. \"EVL-123456\", \"123456\")",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / listing_ids
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Evlek listing UUIDs (2-4)",
-  "items": {
-    "description": "Evlek listing UUID",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "listing_ids"
-]New value: +[
+  "listingIds"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / dataSource
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / isEstimate
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / listings / items
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "area": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "bathrooms": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "bedrooms": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "city": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "currency": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "district": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "monthlyRentGbp": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "number": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "price": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "priceGbp": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "pricePerSqm": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "title",
+    "price",
+    "priceGbp",
+    "type",
+    "url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / metricType
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "count",
+  "listings"
+]
  2. First observedv1.6.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it only compares factual listing data and avoids subjective judgments, shows specific outputs (price, size, £/m²), and documents that the legacy alias `listing_ids` is accepted. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct value: core function, output scope and non-judgment boundary, and alias note. The most important constraints are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with one parameter, a complete output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers all needed guidance: input count and type constraints, active and same-type prerequisites, what it returns, what it avoids, and legacy compatibility. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that only listings of the same type and active listings should be compared, and by revealing the legacy `listing_ids` alias. These details are not present in the schema itself, raising the value above baseline.

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 the specific verb 'Compare' with a clear resource: descriptive facts from 2-4 active Evlek sale or long-term-rent listings of the same type. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_cities by focusing on property listings, and from listing lookups by emphasizing side-by-side comparison of facts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly scopes when to use the tool: comparing descriptive facts from 2-4 active listings of the same type. It also provides an explicit when-not by stating it makes no value, suitability, appraisal, or investment judgment. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the use case is well-defined enough to guide an agent.

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