lendlord-mcp

Add property

add_property

Create a property in Lendlord with a required address and optional field values, assigning ownership to the first applicant unless a specific owner is set.

Instructions

Create a property. fields uses Lendlord field names (see list_property_fields), e.g. {"Property Value": 150000, "Date of Purchase": "2024-05-01"}. Owned by the first applicant unless ownerApplicantId is given.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "add_property"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	No
`fields`	No
`status`	No	"active" = owned, "potential" = prospect	active
`address`	Yes
`confirm`	No	Set true once the user has approved writes for this session
`postcode`	No
`ownerApplicantId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral rule — the property defaults to being owned by the first applicant unless ownerApplicantId is supplied — which the annotations cannot convey. It does not mention failure modes or the confirm requirement, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and then the two details an agent actually needs (field naming and ownership default). Nothing repeats structured data unnecessarily.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the tricky nested parameter, and the ownership default. It omits the confirm/write-approval expectation (present only in the schema) and any duplicate-address or validation behavior, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, and it does so for the most ambiguous parameter: `fields` is explained as using Lendlord field names with a concrete example and a pointer to list_property_fields, and ownerApplicantId's effect is described. Remaining gaps (city, postcode, address) are self-evident strings, so this is close to sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a property") that is immediately distinguishable from siblings update_property and delete_property. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the create/update/delete split is self-evident from the verb.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the cross-reference to list_property_fields tells the agent where to get valid field names, and the ownerApplicantId note implies a multi-applicant context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to update_property or the confirm-gated write flow.

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