buildium-mcp

Buildium Call Endpoint

buildium_call_endpoint

Destructive

Execute any Buildium API operation by specifying method, path, query, and body. Limit response fields, paginate GET results, and confirm deletes for controlled writes.

Instructions

Call any Buildium endpoint.

method: GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, or DELETE path: e.g. "/v1/leases" or "/v1/leases/12345" query: query-string parameters body: JSON request body for writes fields: keep only these top-level fields in the response. Buildium records are large — passing e.g. ["Id","Name","PropertyIds"] avoids pulling tax IDs and full addresses you did not ask for. confirm: required (true) for DELETE all_pages: GET only — follow pagination to the end instead of returning the first page. Use it whenever you are counting or aggregating; a count taken from one page is wrong whenever the collection is larger than the page.

Write guardrails apply — see buildium_health for the active mode. In the default 'fixtures' mode, created records must carry the fixture prefix in their name, and updates/deletes only work on records created this session.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`path`	Yes
`query`	No
`fields`	No
`method`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`all_pages`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds concrete behavioral context: DELETE requires confirm=true, all_pages controls pagination, and write guardrails depend on the active mode (fixtures vs production). It also warns about large responses and how to trim them. This meaningfully informs the agent about side effects and constraints.

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 structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Parameter explanations are concise and use examples, and the guardrails note is essential. It is a bit long, but every sentence adds value for a tool with 7 parameters and safety requirements.

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 complexity (7 params, generic endpoint caller), the description covers all parameters, safety constraints, and references buildium_health for the active mode. An output schema exists, so return format is not needed. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation, though it could mention error handling or rate limits.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so excellently: every parameter (method, path, query, body, fields, confirm, all_pages) is explained with examples and usage notes, going far beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Call any Buildium endpoint') and clearly differentiates from the sibling tools by being the generic raw API accessor. The parameter explanations reinforce the scope, making it unmistakable what the tool does.

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 it is the universal fallback for endpoints not covered by dedicated tools, but it never explicitly says 'prefer the specific tools when available' or lists exclusions. It gives parameter-level usage advice (e.g., all_pages for counting) but no tool-level comparison to siblings.

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