Divar Intelligence MCP

dv_get_listing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve public details from an HTTPS divar.ir listing URL or token, preserving missing, false, and zero values and separating rent from deposit.

Instructions

Read public details of a token or HTTPS divar.ir listing URL; preserve missing/false/zero and separate rent/deposit.

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": {
      "listing": "<listing>"
    },
    "name": "dv_get_listing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`listing`	Yes
`refresh`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`listing`	Yes
`schema_version`	No		1.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results preserve missing/false/zero values rather than coercing them, rent and deposit are kept separate, and only public data is returned.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the two output-fidelity caveats. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing is terse enough to read as a checklist.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the description covers purpose, accepted input forms, and result-fidelity quirks. The only real omission is the meaning and effect of the refresh parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema contributes nothing about parameter meaning. The description partially compensates by explaining that 'listing' accepts a token or an HTTPS divar.ir URL, but the 'refresh' boolean is left entirely unexplained in both description and schema.

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 ('Read') and resource ('public details of a token or HTTPS divar.ir listing URL'), which is clear and distinguishable from the plural sibling dv_get_listings. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to route against, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 accepted input forms (token or HTTPS URL) imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no reference to alternatives such as dv_get_listings or dv_search. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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