Preview masked agent or brokerage records before spending credits; apply filters to evaluate matches without consuming record credits.
Preview masked agents or brokerages. Searching spends no record credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| filters | No | state, countyFips, city (requires state), zip, mustHave, activeLicense, organization, orgType. See API docs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds two things annotations don't convey: results are masked, and searching consumes no record credits — a meaningful cost/behavior disclosure.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the cost note follows immediately.
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 simple preview tool with full safety annotations, the description covers purpose and cost but not what a 'preview' actually returns (sample masked records? counts?), which matters since there is no output schema. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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?
Schema coverage is 50%, and the description says nothing about 'kind' or the nested 'filters' object. The schema already documents the kind enum and enumerates filter fields, so the description adds no semantic value beyond structured data, matching the baseline for partial 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?
States a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('masked agents or brokerages'), making it distinguishable from siblings like unlock_records by signaling that data comes back masked. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implied.
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?
'Searching spends no record credits' hints at when to use this tool (cheap exploration before paying to unlock), but it never states that relationship explicitly or names unlock_records/count_records as alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.