Divar Intelligence MCP

dv_export_results

Export Divar search results as a bounded, owner-scoped CSV or JSONL resource valid for one hour, with CSV cells protected against formula execution.

Instructions

Create a bounded, owner-scoped one-hour export resource; CSV cells are protected against formula execution.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "dv_export_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No		csv
`request`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`data`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`schema_version`	No	1.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: the export resource is bounded, owner-scoped, expires after one hour, and protects CSV cells against formula execution. It does not mention required permissions or rate-limit behavior, but it substantially improves transparency for a non-read-only creation tool.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Every phrase contributes either scope, lifetime, ownership, or CSV safety context.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described, and the description covers key operational constraints. However, with a large nested request object and 0% schema descriptions, it leaves the request semantics and format options unexplained, creating clear gaps for correct invocation.

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 compensate, but it does not explain the nested SearchRequest fields or clarify that the format parameter accepts both csv and jsonl. It only mentions CSV cells and formula protection, giving minimal parameter-related meaning.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Create a bounded, owner-scoped one-hour export resource.' It clearly frames the tool as an export-resource creator, though it does not explicitly say what results are being exported or contrast it with sibling search/list tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as dv_search or dv_get_listings. Usage is only implied by the word 'export' and the Existence of a request parameter.

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