Property Owner Records MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to Property Owner Records MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides access to comprehensive US property data, including automated valuations, tax history, comparable sales, and ownership details, enabling real estate analysis and market insights.140 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceOwner, APN and address lookup across 481 US counties (509 verified ArcGIS REST endpoints, all 50 states plus DC), plus code violations and building permits for 30 cities and zoning cases for 19. No API key; built on public county GIS data.4462 npm1MIT

mcp-batchdataofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables property-data lookups by address, attribute-based property searches across 155M+ records, and skip-tracing to resolve owner contact information via the BatchData API.130 npmMIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables US address verification and standardization, validating deliverability and returning USPS-standardized data, plus property enrichment with 350+ tax assessor and deed attributes for a given address.9 npmMIT

BatchData MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants and agents to query U.S. real estate data, including property lookups, comparables, property searches, skip tracing, phone/address verification, and investor buy boxes, through plain-language requests.1MIT- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides free property and parcel intelligence using official US government data APIs, county assessor records, and live listings, with tools for hazard risk checks, affordability calculations, and parcel ranking.-
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool in the set, there is no possibility of confusion or misselection between tools. The single tool's purpose (property owner record lookup) is clearly and unambiguously stated.
The sole tool follows a clear verb_noun convention (lookup_property_owner_records) in snake_case. There is nothing to be inconsistent with, so the naming is trivially predictable.
A single tool is on the thin side even for a focused lookup service, which typically benefits from at least a search plus a detail/export variant. The count is borderline rather than clearly wrong for a narrow domain.
The tool appears to cover the core lookup and returns rich row-level data, but there are no companion operations (e.g. bulk export, schema/field discovery, or a coverage check for supported states) that agents would often need. The surface is functional but minimally so for a data-retrieval service.