Israeli Land Authority MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: get_active_tenders retrieves open tenders, get_kod_yeshuv maps settlement names to codes, get_recent_results fetches completed tenders, get_tender_details provides comprehensive tender information, get_tender_map_details offers geographic data, search_by_type filters by land use, and search_tenders enables advanced filtering. The descriptions reinforce these unique roles, eliminating any ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_active_tenders, get_kod_yeshuv, get_recent_results, get_tender_details, get_tender_map_details, search_by_type, and search_tenders. This uniformity makes the tools predictable and easy to understand, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of accessing Israeli land authority data. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects such as tender retrieval, settlement coding, results monitoring, detailed views, mapping, and search functionalities, avoiding both bloat and insufficiency.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for querying and analyzing land tenders, including active, recent, and detailed views, plus mapping and search capabilities. A minor gap exists in lifecycle operations like creating or updating tenders, but this is likely intentional given the server's focus on read-only public data access, and agents can work effectively within this scope.
Average 3.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool retrieves data ('get', 'find') and implies read-only behavior by focusing on 'completed tenders with published results,' but doesn't specify critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and use case. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and use case, but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations and low parameter coverage, leaving gaps for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('days') with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The description adds some context by implying a time-based filter ('recent days'), but doesn't explain the parameter's semantics beyond that. It doesn't clarify the default value, valid ranges, or how 'days' interacts with the query. With low schema coverage, the description compensates minimally, meeting the baseline for adequate but incomplete parameter information.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get tenders with results from recent days' and 'Find completed tenders with published results for market analysis and trend monitoring.' It specifies the verb ('get', 'find'), resource ('tenders with results', 'completed tenders'), and scope ('recent days', 'published results'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_active_tenders' or 'search_tenders', which likely have overlapping domains.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions use cases ('market analysis and trend monitoring') but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'get_active_tenders' (which might fetch ongoing tenders) or 'search_tenders' (which could have broader filtering). This leaves the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'location coordinates and map integration data' but doesn't describe format, accuracy, or limitations. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently state purpose and return values. The first sentence clearly establishes what the tool does, and the second specifies the output. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit separation of purpose and behavior.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description's job is lighter. It adequately covers the core purpose and output types. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, it should ideally provide more parameter guidance and behavioral context to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (the parameter 'michraz_id' has no description in the schema), but the description doesn't compensate by explaining the parameter. It mentions 'for the specified tender' which implies a tender identifier is needed, but doesn't clarify what 'michraz_id' represents or provide format examples. With one undocumented parameter and no compensation in the description, this meets the baseline for minimal viability.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get geographic and mapping data for a specific tender' specifies the verb (get), resource (geographic and mapping data), and scope (for a specific tender). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tender_details' by focusing on geographic/mapping aspects rather than general details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus 'get_tender_details' (which might return different data) or 'search_tenders' (which might find tenders before getting map details). There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Returns detailed information' and lists some data types (dates, guarantees, documents, administrative details), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The output schema exists, but the description doesn't hint at response structure beyond the listed categories.
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?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on return values. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the key action ('Get comprehensive details').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return categories, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and deeper parameter context. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description should do more to compensate for missing annotations.
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?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that the tool requires 'a specific tender by ID', implicitly explaining the 'michraz_id' parameter's purpose as a unique identifier. However, it doesn't detail parameter constraints (e.g., ID format or range) or provide examples.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive details for a specific tender by ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_active_tenders' or 'search_tenders' that handle multiple tenders. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_tender_map_details', which might be a similar single-tender lookup tool.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_active_tenders' or 'search_tenders'. It mentions 'by ID' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., needing a known tender ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for searching by other criteria).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'backward compatibility' and 'Supports Hebrew text', which adds some context about language support and legacy features. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value: establishes the core purpose, details filtering capabilities, and mentions language/backward compatibility. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently structured without wasted words. Could be slightly more concise by combining the second and third sentences, but overall well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and high-level filtering capabilities well, but lacks guidance on when to use vs. siblings, behavioral details, and deeper parameter semantics. For a search tool with many parameters and no annotations, it should do more to compensate for the schema gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'comprehensive filtering options including tender types, locations, statuses, date ranges, and priority populations', which provides high-level semantic context for many parameters. However, it doesn't explain specific parameter meanings, relationships, or usage patterns beyond this broad categorization. The description adds meaningful context but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'search' and resource 'land tenders from the Israeli Land Authority', providing a specific purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_active_tenders' by mentioning 'comprehensive filtering options', but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through 'Enhanced search with comprehensive filtering options', suggesting this is for detailed searches, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. simpler siblings like 'get_active_tenders' or 'search_by_type'. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a search operation but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, returns paginated results, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: first states the core purpose, second provides clarifying examples. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it appropriately front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity with 3 parameters, the description provides basic purpose and examples but lacks behavioral context, complete parameter guidance, and sibling differentiation. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'type or land use purpose' which maps to two of the three parameters (tender_types, purpose) but doesn't mention 'active_only'. The description adds some semantic context but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap, especially for the boolean filter parameter.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search tenders by type or land use purpose' with specific examples (residential, commercial, low-rise construction, offices). It distinguishes itself from generic search by focusing on type/purpose filtering, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_tenders'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('Find tenders of specific types or purposes') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_tenders' or 'get_active_tenders'. It provides general guidance but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'a list of tenders that are currently open for submissions', which clarifies the output behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (beyond the max_results parameter), or error handling, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context without redundancy. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and utility, with zero wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource (land tenders), state (active), and purpose (finding bidding opportunities), though it could benefit from more behavioral details like permissions or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. Since the schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so. The baseline is 3 because the schema provides some structure, but the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all currently active land tenders' specifies both the verb (get) and resource (land tenders). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'active' tenders, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'get_recent_results' or 'search_tenders'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: 'useful for finding current bidding opportunities' suggests when to use it. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_tenders' or 'get_recent_results', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the core behavior (lookup/translation) and mentions the integration use case, but doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. It adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.
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?
The description is perfectly structured with two focused sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second explains the practical application. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's simple nature (single parameter lookup), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and the clear purpose statement, the description is reasonably complete. However, it could benefit from mentioning potential edge cases or error scenarios for a tool with no annotations.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose ('Hebrew settlement name to get the Kod Yeshuv for') and context. It adds meaningful semantics beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't specify format requirements or character encoding details.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Kod Yeshuv'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on settlement code lookup rather than tender-related operations. It explains what the tool does in concrete terms: converting Hebrew settlement names to official settlement codes.
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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('for integration with other Israeli government systems'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on settlement codes rather than tenders, though not through explicit comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![remy-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/barvhaim/remy-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/barvhaim/remy-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![remy-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/barvhaim/remy-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/barvhaim/remy-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/barvhaim/remy-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server