Lists districts of a city that have listing pages, returning each district's slug and display name. Use the slug with the search tool to find listings in a specific district.
Districts of a city with listing pages: slug (use with emlakjet_search) and display name. city: slug like "istanbul".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | istanbul | |
| listing_type | No | satilik | |
| property_type | No | daire |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuine behavioral detail — that only districts 'with listing pages' are returned — but says nothing about whether listing_type or property_type change which districts come back, nor about response size or any access requirements.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, and no filler. The phrasing 'Districts of a city with listing pages' is slightly compressed and takes a second read, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, and it covers the search-integration purpose adequately. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, leaving two parameters entirely unexplained is a meaningful completeness gap.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only covers one of three parameters: city, clarified as a slug like "istanbul". The listing_type and property_type parameters are completely unexplained despite defaulting to 'satilik' and 'daire', so an agent cannot tell whether changing them alters the district list.
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 names a specific resource (districts of a city) and states the two fields returned (slug and display name), which lets an agent distinguish it from emlakjet_listing_detail and emlakjet_price_stats. The verb is nominal rather than explicit ('Districts of a city'), but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
It hints at the workflow by saying the slug should be 'used with emlakjet_search', which implies this is a lookup step before searching. It never states when to call this instead of emlakjet_search directly, nor when the tool is unnecessary (e.g., if the district slug is already known).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.