Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Postcode Context Great Britain

Postcode Context Great Britain

Official
by postcodecontext
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get Great Britain Property & Energy Efficiency Profile

get_property_and_energy_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve property valuation, energy efficiency, and gigabit broadband data for any Great Britain postcode to assess a location's real estate and connectivity profile.

Instructions

Retrieve real estate valuation (HM Land Registry / Registers of Scotland median house price, price per sqm, 3yr sales volume), EPC energy efficiency (current/potential band, retrofit upside), and Ofcom gigabit broadband connectivity for any Great Britain postcode. Covers England, Scotland, and Wales (excludes Northern Ireland BT postcodes).

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": {
      "postcode": "<postcode>"
    },
    "name": "get_property_and_energy_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
postcodeYesGreat Britain unit postcode to inspect for real estate transactions, £/sqm, and EPC ratings (e.g. SW1A 1AA, BB7 3BB, EH1 1YZ, CF10 1EP). Space-optional, case-insensitive.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
_billingNo
locationYes
_licensingNo
confidenceNo
match_typeNo
_disclaimerNo
_attributionYes
landmark_contextNo
resolved_districtNo
requested_postcodeNo
property_and_energyYes
digital_infrastructureYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description need only add context. It does: it names the underlying data providers (HM Land Registry, Registers of Scotland, EPC, Ofcom) and discloses a hard coverage exclusion for Northern Ireland BT postcodes, which prevents wasted calls. It stops short of noting data freshness/lag or behavior on unknown postcodes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the three data domains, with the geographic caveat placed last where it belongs. The parenthetical source citations are dense but each earns its place by telling the agent what data quality to expect.

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?

With a full output schema, complete annotations, and a 100%-documented single parameter, the description carries little extra burden. It covers data domains and geographic limits; only edge-case behavior (invalid or non-GB postcodes, data recency) is unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and the single postcode parameter already documents format, examples, case-insensitivity, and space-optionality. The description's only added constraint is the GB-only scope excluding BT postcodes, which is more a coverage statement than parameter guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb ("Retrieve") and enumerates the exact payload: valuation from HM Land Registry / Registers of Scotland, EPC band and retrofit upside, and Ofcom gigabit connectivity. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_demographics_and_deprivation, compare_postcodes, or lookup_postcode, which cover different data domains.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for a per-postcode property/energy/broadband profile, and the geographic scope (England, Scotland, Wales; excludes NI BT postcodes) is a useful boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., compare_postcodes for multi-postcode comparisons).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools