lendlord-mcp

Link document

link_document

Attach an existing document to a property or tenant in Lendlord, creating a separate copy under the original name with its own ID.

Instructions

Attach an existing document to another property or tenant. Lendlord stores this as a separate copy (same file, own id) under the original name.

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": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>",
      "entityId": "<entityId>"
    },
    "name": "link_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Set true once the user has approved writes for this session
`entityId`	Yes
`documentId`	Yes
`entityType`	No		property

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real value beyond annotations: discloses that Lendlord creates a separate copy with its own id under the original name — a non-obvious side effect. Annotations only cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld. However, it doesn't mention the confirm-gated write approval requirement from the schema or any auth/permission expectations.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, then the key side effect. No filler.

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?

Covers purpose, targets, and the important copy-on-link behavior. Missing the confirm-gated write requirement (which the schema hints at but the description ignores) and any permission/error context, but as a non-destructive, no-output-schema operation it is nearly complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is only 25%, so most parameters (documentId, entityId, entityType) are undocumented in the schema. The description clarifies entityType options by implication ('property or tenant') but doesn't explain documentId/entityId meaning or the confirm flag's role. Partial compensation only.

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?

Specific verb (attach) + resource (existing document) + target (property or tenant). Distinguishes from siblings like upload_document (new file), send_document (delivery), and rename/delete_document (other lifecycle ops).

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?

Implies usage by describing the attach operation, but doesn't state when to use this vs upload_document or send_document, nor that the document must already exist in the account. No exclusions or prerequisites called out.

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