Skip to main content
Glama
dragosh29

Dezrez Rezi MCP server

by dragosh29

Get offer

get_offer
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve one offer by ID from Dezrez Rezi CRM with value, status, property, applicant/vendor groups, notes, documents, negotiators, and optional contact details.

Instructions

One offer by ID, in full: value, validity, status, the property, applicant and vendor groups with their primary members (names by default), the marketed price, the vendor's response and communication, notes, documents (name, type and link) and negotiators. Uses GET /api/Offer/{id}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offer_idYesOffer ID (a positive whole number)
include_contact_detailsNoInclude applicants', vendors' and negotiators' email addresses, phone numbers and postal addresses, and stop redacting emails and phone numbers from names and notes. Off by default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: member names are returned by default, emails/phones are redacted unless include_contact_details is set, and it names the backing endpoint GET /api/Offer/{id}.

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 dense sentence front-loads the core intent and then enumerates the returned fields, followed by a short endpoint note. Every clause carries information, though the field list is long.

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?

With no output schema, the description commendably enumerates the returned fields (value, validity, status, property, groups, price, vendor response, notes, documents, negotiators), which an agent needs to interpret results. Missing only explicit routing guidance against sibling search tools.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the default=false for include_contact_details and its redaction semantics. The description's 'names by default' echoes that without adding format or syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (get) and resource (one offer by ID) and enumerates the payload's contents in detail, making the scope unmistakable. It does not explicitly name siblings like list_offers to contrast, so it stops 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'One offer by ID' implies retrieval of a single known offer, which is adequate context, but the description never states when to use this versus list_offers or search tools, and gives no prerequisites.

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