Divar Intelligence MCP

dv_neighbours

Read-onlyIdempotent

List adjacent and nearby neighbourhoods for a district while preserving distinct helper bases, enabling area comparison and location analysis.

Instructions

List adjacent and nearby neighbourhoods with the helper's distinct bases preserved.

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": {
      "district_id": "<district_id>"
    },
    "name": "dv_neighbours"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	No		tehran
`district_id`	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

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond them – 'distinct bases preserved' is undefined and conveys nothing about output shape, ordering, or spatial semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single sentence and the action is front-loaded, which is good. But the second half is cryptic filler that does not earn its place by adding meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotation-supplied context, the description leaves required-parameter behavior and city defaulting entirely unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across two parameters, and the description says nothing about either. It never explains that district_id is required, nor that city defaults to 'tehran', leaving the agent with no semantics beyond raw types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a recognizable verb ('List') and resource ('adjacent and nearby neighbourhoods'), but the trailing clause 'with the helper's distinct bases preserved' is opaque jargon that does not clarify scope. It also fails to distinguish itself from close siblings like dv_nearby and dv_boundaries, leaving the agent unsure which spatial tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite siblings dv_nearby and dv_boundaries overlapping heavily with this tool. The agent must infer the selection condition entirely on its own.

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