Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cenogram-mcp-server

cenogram-mcp-server

Official
by cenogram
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_building_breakdown

Read-only

Breaks down a transaction that carries building data into individual buildings, returning footprint area, storeys, estimated floor area and construction-age intervals for each.

Instructions

Building-by-building breakdown for one transaction: footprint area, storeys and estimated total floor area (footprint × storeys) of each building on the property. Use it after a search whose result has building data (searches return per-transaction building SUMS inline) - e.g. a developed-land deed covering several buildings. Each building carries a construction-age ESTIMATE with an interval, derived from building-permit records: never a registry construction date, and the records only start in 2016, so "construction year not established" is the usual honest answer. Cost: 4 tokens. Returns nothing for a transaction with no buildings.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transactionIdNo
transaction_idNoTransaction id (UUID) from a search result that carries building data. This or transactionId is required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.18.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / transactionId
      Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / transaction_id / description
      Previous value: -"Transaction id (UUID) from a search_transactions / search_by_area / search_by_polygon result that carries building data."New value: +"Transaction id (UUID) from a search result that carries building data. This or transactionId is required."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "transaction_id"
-]
  2. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, so the description carries the burden and does so richly: it discloses provenance of the construction-age ESTIMATE (permit records, never a registry date), the 2016 record horizon, the expected 'not established' outcome, and a concrete cost of 4 tokens. That is exactly the behavioral context structured fields cannot provide.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then the usage trigger, then the caveat about estimate quality and cost. Three tight paragraphs with no filler; every sentence conveys a fact an agent needs (fields, provenance, empty-result behavior, price).

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 no output schema and only safety annotations, the description still explains the returned fields, the semantic meaning of the estimate's interval, the empty-result case, and the token cost. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 50%: transaction_id is documented in the schema but transactionId is not, and the description never clarifies that the two are aliases for the same UUID. The description's 'for one transaction' adds orientation but no format or disambiguation guidance beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 (building-by-building breakdown for one transaction) and enumerates the returned fields: footprint area, storeys, estimated total floor area with the footprint × storeys formula. It also explicitly contrasts itself with search tools that return per-transaction building SUMS, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: use it after a search whose result carries building data, e.g. a developed-land deed covering several buildings. It also notes the degenerate case (returns nothing for a transaction with no buildings). It doesn't name a specific sibling tool by name, but the alternative (inline search sums) is described well enough to route correctly.

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