Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

homes-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Compare homes.com properties side-by-side

homes_compare_properties
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare up to 8 homes.com properties side-by-side by fetching their URLs. Align key facts like price, lot size, HOA fees, and days on market.

Instructions

Fetch 2 or more homes.com properties and align their facts side-by-side. Each target supplies a url — the full homes.com property URL (e.g. from a homes_search_properties result's url field). Returns the full per-property record (with server-side extracted_features, hoa_monthly_usd, days_on_market, price_drop_*, lot_size_sqft + the derived lot_size_acres, and portal_url_hyperlink). Per-target errors are captured per-row — one bad target will not fail the whole call: a failed row carries status = error_kind (timeout / bridge_down / protocol / other) plus retryable and error, and the envelope reports count / ok / errored. Calls are concurrent and bounded by an overall deadline: any row still unsettled comes back status: "pending" (retryable) with a top-level pending count — re-run just those targets. The raw description is omitted by default; pass include_description: true to keep the marketing prose. listing_agent omits the agent's telephone/email unless include_agent_contact: true. The cross-row summary table duplicates per-property fields (~30% of response weight); it is OPT-IN via include_summary: true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; "full" returns Homes.com's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which Homes.com fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.
targetsYesArray of 2–8 properties to compare
include_summaryNoWhen true, also emit a cross-row `summary` table aligned by field. Default false — the per-row records already carry every summary field, so the table is redundant context weight unless explicitly requested (#18).
include_descriptionNoWhen true, include the raw listing `description` marketing prose on each per-property record. Default false.
include_agent_contactNoWhen true, include the listing agent's `telephone` and `email` on `listing_agent`. Default false — name, job title, profile url and brokerage are returned without the contact details.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_agent_contact
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "When true, include the listing agent's `telephone` and `email` on `listing_agent`. Default false — name, job title, profile url and brokerage are returned without the contact details.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response shape: \"compact\" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; \"full\" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; \"full\" returns Homes.com's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which Homes.com fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: per-row error capture with `error_kind` values (timeout/bridge_down/protocol/other), `retryable`, the `count`/`ok`/`errored` envelope, concurrency bounded by an overall deadline, `pending` rows with a top-level count, and the default-omission of `description` and agent contact details. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs to handle partial failures.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and every sentence carries real information (error model, pending handling, opt-in flags). However it is a single dense paragraph with no structural breaks, which makes the opt-in flags harder to scan than a short list would.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: it enumerates the returned per-property fields, the error envelope shape, and the pending semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret results is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are already rich, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by tying the opt-in flags to concrete tradeoffs (raw description omitted by default; agent telephone/email omitted unless opted in; the cross-row `summary` is ~30% of response weight and redundant), but most of this is a restatement of what the schema descriptions already say.

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 ("Fetch 2 or more homes.com properties and align their facts side-by-side") and the "2 or more" + side-by-side framing inherently distinguishes it from single-property siblings like homes_get_property and from search siblings like homes_search_properties. An agent can tell what unique job this tool performs 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 clear context: targets come from a homes_search_properties result's `url` field, and the pending-row behavior tells the agent to "re-run just those targets." It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives for fetching a single property, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives routing.

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