buildium-mcp

Buildium Lease Roster

buildium_lease_roster

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the lease-to-tenant roster: list who is on a lease and count co-tenants, with optional filters for property and exclusion of test fixtures. Solves Buildium's missing tenant names in lease lists.

Instructions

Who is on which lease — the lease-to-tenant join, done in one call.

Use this for any "who lives in / who is on lease X" question, and for counting co-tenants.

Buildium makes this awkward: the lease list does not reliably populate tenant names, and the tenant endpoint has no lease filter — so answering it directly means pulling every lease one at a time. Tenant records do carry their lease membership, so this fetches them once and inverts the mapping locally.

lease_id: restrict to a single lease property_id: restrict to leases at one property exclude_fixtures: drop tenants created by test tooling (names starting with the fixture prefix — see buildium_health). This sandbox accumulates such records permanently, because Buildium offers DELETE on only 14 of its 462 operations. When any are present the response says so, so a count is never silently wrong.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`lease_id`	No
`property_id`	No
`exclude_fixtures`	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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it fetches tenants once and inverts the mapping locally, handles fixture records, and warns that fixtures accumulate permanently because Buildium only supports DELETE on 14 of 462 operations. It also says the response flags fixture presence so counts are never silently wrong.

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 front-loaded with a one-line thesis, followed by usage, rationale, and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place, including the detailed fixture caveat, which is decision-relevant for accurate counting.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and data-quality caveats. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description adds semantics for lease_id, property_id, and exclude_fixtures, explaining restriction behavior and what fixture exclusion means. It omits any explanation of the limit parameter, though its default value and type are present in the 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?

The opening line states the exact resource and operation: 'Who is on which lease — the lease-to-tenant join, done in one call.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining that lease lists don't reliably populate tenant names and the tenant endpoint has no lease filter.

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 explicitly says to use this for 'who lives in / who is on lease X' questions and for counting co-tenants. It gives clear context about why direct alternatives are awkward, but it does not name sibling tools explicitly or give a formal 'when not to use' statement.

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