get_propertyRetrieve every stored field for a single property, including its tenants and linked documents, by supplying a property ID. Use it to view complete property details and related records in one call.
Every stored field for one property, plus its tenants and the documents linked to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| propertyId | Yes | Property id from list_properties |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description uniquely adds that the response bundles every stored field plus related tenants and documents — useful breadth context — but says nothing about pagination, size limits, or what happens if the property does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the return scope with zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating what the response contains (all fields, tenants, linked documents). Missing only edge-case behavior and pagination notes, which is a minor gap for a read-only getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter documents itself as 'Property id from list_properties'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but 'Every stored field for one property' plus tenants and linked documents makes the resource and scope unambiguous. It distinguishes this aggregate fetch from siblings like list_properties or list_property_fields, though it never names those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative tools such as find_property, list_properties, or list_property_fields. The agent must infer that this is the single-record detail lookup from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.