lendlord-mcp

Get rent collection

get_rent_collection

Read-only

Retrieve expected rent payments per tenant between two dates, including due dates and matched transactions.

Instructions

Expected rent payments (per tenant, with due dates and matched transactions) between two dates.

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "get_rent_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes
`from`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned data shape (per tenant, due dates, matched transactions), but discloses nothing about auth, limits, or pagination.

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, well-formed sentence with the scope (between two dates) placed at the end. No filler, though it is quite terse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and no output schema exists so return-value description isn't strictly required. However, it leaves the date format and range semantics undocumented in both schema and description.

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 carry the parameter burden. It only implies that 'from' and 'to' bound a date range and never explains the expected ISO date format or whether the range is inclusive.

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 clear verb (get) and resource (rent collection) and specifies the returned content: expected rent payments per tenant with due dates and matched transactions. No sibling overlaps this concept, so no explicit differentiation is needed.

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?

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_profit_and_loss or list_transactions, nor any prerequisites or conditions. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'between two dates'.

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