Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

redfin-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Bulk-resolve street addresses to Redfin URLs + home_ids

redfin_resolve_addresses
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve up to 100 free-text addresses to Redfin home URLs and IDs in one call, preserving input order. Use it to convert property lists from other systems into Redfin handles for follow-up calls.

Instructions

Resolve up to 100 free-text street addresses to Redfin canonical home URLs + home_ids in a single tool call. Each input is either a string (full address) or a structured {street, city, state, zip} object. Output preserves input order. Unresolved entries return resolved: false without aborting the batch; a transient bridge failure surfaces a distinct retryable status (timeout/bridge_down/pending) so it is never mistaken for a genuine no-match. Per-row retry-once-on-timeout, server-side concurrency ~6 in flight. The whole call is bounded by an overall hard deadline: a single slow/hung row never wedges the server — unsettled rows come back with status: "pending" and a pending count so you can re-run just those. Use this when you have a list of properties from another system (Compass, MLS, spreadsheet) and need their Redfin handles for follow-on calls — collapses the typical 6-search-call + 15-resolve flow into one trip.

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 Redfin's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which Redfin fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.
addressesYesArray of 1–100 addresses to resolve, each a string or a {street, city, state, zip} object.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.13.1
    • 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 Redfin's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which Redfin fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.10.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower — yet the description still adds substantial behavioral context: input-order preservation, per-row no-match (`resolved: false`) vs. distinct retryable statuses (timeout/bridge_down/pending), retry-once-on-timeout, ~6 in-flight concurrency, and a hard overall deadline with re-runnable `pending` rows. This is exactly the kind of failure/semantics disclosure agents need and no annotation covers.

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?

Though long, every sentence earns its place: purpose → input forms → ordering → no-match vs. retryable failure → retry/concurrency → deadline behavior → usage scenario. It is front-loaded with the core action and flows logically with zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 present, the description carries full burden for return semantics — and it delivers: input-order preservation, resolved vs. unresolved vs. transient statuses, pending re-run guidance, batch limits, retry behavior, and the motivating use case. For a complex batch tool this is remarkably complete; nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% — both `addresses` and `view` carry rich descriptions (including the compact/full distinction and the anyOf string/object shape). The tool description restates the input forms but adds little beyond the schema; the error-semantics detail it provides is output behavior, not parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve up to 100 free-text street addresses to Redfin canonical home URLs + home_ids in a single tool call.' The batch scope (up to 100) and the URL+home_id output clearly distinguish this from single-address siblings like redfin_get_by_address, and the title reinforces the same purpose.

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?

Ends with an explicit when-to-use clause: 'Use this when you have a list of properties from another system (Compass, MLS, spreadsheet) and need their Redfin handles for follow-on calls.' It also frames the value proposition by contrasting with the 'typical 6-search-call + 15-resolve flow.' However, it does not name a specific alternative sibling for the single-address case or state any when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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