lendlord-mcp

Find property

find_property

Read-only

Rank properties against free text such as an email subject, address, postcode, tenant name, or certificate number, then select the best match before filing an email.

Instructions

Rank properties against free text such as an email's subject/body, an address, postcode, tenant name/email, or a policy/certificate number. Use before file_email to pick the property.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "find_property"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, open-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that results are ranked against free text rather than exact-matched, but says nothing about result shape, behavior on zero matches, or how scoring/truncation works.

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?

Two sentences, no filler; the input surface is front-loaded and the workflow hint is placed last as an action cue. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only guide, and it adequately conveys input types and intent for a 2-parameter read tool. A brief note on what a ranked result contains (or what an empty result means) would make it complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does it well for 'text', enumerating concrete input classes (email subject/body, address, postcode, tenant name/email, policy or certificate number). 'limit' is left undocumented, though its default and bounds are visible 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rank properties') plus the free-text inputs it accepts, which cleanly separates it from list_properties and get_property. An agent can tell this is a fuzzy-relevance lookup rather than an enumeration or exact fetch.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before file_email to pick the property,' anchoring the tool in a concrete workflow and naming the downstream sibling. It does not state when to skip it (e.g. when an exact property id is already known), so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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