lendlord-mcp

Get communication

get_communication

Read-only

Retrieve a maintenance report or conversation by communication ID, including its full message thread. Use it to review landlord communication history.

Instructions

One maintenance report or conversation, including its messages.

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": {
      "communicationId": "<communicationId>"
    },
    "name": "get_communication"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No		maintenanceReport
`communicationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that messages are embedded in the result — but says nothing about permissions, empty/missing results, or the openWorldHint=true implication.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the core resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be fully useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and 2 parameters including an enum discriminator, the description should explain the id and the type choice. It leaves both undocumented, so an agent lacks what it needs to call this correctly in ambiguous cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it never mentions communicationId or the type discriminator. The phrase 'maintenance report or conversation' loosely echoes the type enum but gives no guidance on which value to pass or what the default means.

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?

The description names a specific retrieval target ('One maintenance report or conversation') and clarifies the payload includes its messages, which distinguishes it from list_communications by implying a single item. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_communications or get_tenant, nor any precondition such as needing a valid communicationId. The agent must infer the single-vs-list distinction purely from the word 'One'.

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