RentCast MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have clear distinctions between property, rental, and sale data, but there is significant overlap in the 'get_property_data', 'get_property_record_by_id', and 'get_property_records' tools, which could confuse agents about which to use for specific property queries. Descriptions help clarify, but the boundaries are not entirely distinct.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'get_<resource>_<action>' pattern using snake_case, with variations like 'by_id' or 'listings' that are predictable and readable. There are no deviations in naming conventions across the set.
Tool Count4/5
With 12 tools, the count is reasonable for a real estate data server, covering market stats, property details, and listings. It might be slightly heavy, but each tool serves a specific purpose without obvious redundancy, fitting well within the typical 3-15 range for a focused domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive read-only coverage for real estate data, including statistics, property records, and listings for rentals and sales. Minor gaps exist, such as no update or delete operations, but this is typical for a data retrieval API, and agents can work around it for most use cases.
Average 2.7/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Given the complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how to interpret results, or any prerequisites, making it insufficient for effective tool use.
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%, and the description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'property_id' represents (e.g., format, source, or examples), leaving the single parameter undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific property'), but it's vague about what 'detailed information' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_property_record_by_id' or 'get_property_valuation', which likely also retrieve property-related data.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_property_record_by_id' and 'get_property_valuation', the description doesn't clarify if this tool is for general data, specific records, or valuation details, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get property listings') without details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
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?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loading of critical details (e.g., parameter context or sibling differentiation), which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the brevity.
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?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's scope relative to siblings, parameter usage, or expected output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in this context.
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 by explaining parameters. It mentions 'specific area,' which loosely relates to the required 'zip_code' parameter, but doesn't cover other parameters like 'property_type,' 'min_price,' 'max_price,' or 'bedrooms.' This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.
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?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get property listings for a specific area,' which includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('property listings') with some scope ('specific area'). However, it's vague about what 'specific area' means (e.g., zip code, city) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'get_sale_listings' or 'get_rental_listings,' leaving ambiguity in its exact function.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_sale_listings' and 'get_rental_listings,' the description lacks context on whether this tool covers both sale and rental listings, filters by property type, or serves as a general-purpose query, making it unclear how to choose among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'Returns a list of property records' but doesn't describe pagination behavior (despite having page/page_size parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'property record'. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide necessary operational context.
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?
The description is extremely concise with just two short sentences that get straight to the point. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified for a tool with 13 parameters and multiple sibling alternatives. Every word earns its place, but more words would be justified.
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?
For a complex filtering tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the relationship between this tool and alternatives, doesn't describe the return format beyond 'list of property records', and provides no guidance on parameter usage or filtering behavior.
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?
With 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no parameter-specific information beyond 'various filters'. It doesn't explain what property types are available, format expectations for location fields, valid ranges for numeric parameters, or how filtering logic works (AND/OR combinations). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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?
The description states the tool 'Get property records with various filters' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'property records' actually contain and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_property_listings' or 'get_property_data'. It merely restates the tool name with slightly more detail.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_property_listings' or 'get_property_record_by_id'. The description mentions 'various filters' but doesn't specify which filters are available or suggest appropriate use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns a list of random property records, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like: what 'random' means (true randomness vs pseudo-random, seed behavior), whether results are reproducible, what permissions are required, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Returns a list of random property records.') is redundant with the first and adds no value. While brief, it wastes space on repetition rather than providing useful information about the tool's behavior or parameters.
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?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what makes this tool different from other property retrieval tools, doesn't document parameters, and provides minimal behavioral context. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should do much more.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (limit, property_type, state), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what the limit controls (number of records?), what property_type values are valid, or what state refers to (geographic state?). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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?
The description states the tool 'Get random property records' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'random' means in practice and doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_property_records' or 'get_property_listings'. The second sentence merely restates the first with 'Returns a list of...' adding no new information.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for retrieving property data (get_property_records, get_property_listings, etc.), the description doesn't explain why someone would choose random sampling over filtered queries or what specific use cases this tool addresses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'Returns a list of sale listings', missing critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'page_size' parameters but not explained), or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema.
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?
The description is concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded, stating the purpose and return value efficiently. However, it's overly brief given the tool's complexity, bordering on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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?
Given the high complexity (13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the filtering logic, return format, pagination, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for an agent to use this tool effectively without additional context or trial-and-error.
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%, meaning none of the 13 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'various filters' without explaining what those filters are (e.g., zip_code, price ranges) or how they interact. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
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?
The description states the tool 'Get sale listings with various filters' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'sale listings' specifically entails (e.g., real estate properties) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_property_listings' or 'get_sale_listing_by_id'. It's adequate but lacks specificity and differentiation.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_sale_listing_by_id' for single listings or 'get_property_listings' for broader property searches, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential data retrieval implications.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'market statistics' returns, how parameters interact, or behavioral traits, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and 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%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond implying a 'specific area' (which loosely relates to 'zip_code'). It doesn't explain the meaning of 'property_type' or 'bedrooms' parameters, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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?
The description states the tool 'Get market statistics for a specific area' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('market statistics'), but it's vague about what 'market statistics' entails (e.g., prices, trends, inventory) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_property_valuation' or 'get_rent_estimate' that might overlap in purpose.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_property_valuation' and 'get_rent_estimate', the description lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, response format, or any rate limits, which are critical for a tool with undocumented parameters.
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, clear sentence with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose without unnecessary details.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (single parameter but no schema coverage), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for effective use, such as return values, error cases, or how it differs from similar tools.
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 adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'property_id' represents (e.g., format, source, or constraints), leaving the single parameter undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
The description states the action ('Get') and resource ('property record by ID'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'property record' contains and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_property_records' (plural) or 'get_property_data', making it vague in context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_property_listings' or 'get_rental_listing_by_id', leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without any information about permissions required, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate and leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or response format, which are crucial for a retrieval tool. While the purpose is clear, the absence of usage guidelines and parameter details makes it insufficient for reliable agent 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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context for 'listing_id'. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is used to identify a rental listing, but it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid ID (e.g., format, source) or any constraints. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning unclear.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific rental listing by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_rental_listings' by specifying retrieval of a single listing via ID rather than multiple listings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'get_property_record_by_id' or 'get_sale_listing_by_id', which slightly limits differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid listing ID), exclusions (e.g., not for sale listings), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_property_record_by_id' or 'get_sale_listing_by_id'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection in a server with multiple similar retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, pagination behavior (despite page/page_size parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. 'Returns a list' is the only behavioral detail.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste, but under-specified. The first sentence introduces the tool, the second states the return type. However, for a tool with 13 parameters and no annotations, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
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?
For a complex tool with 13 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return structure, error conditions, or how to interpret results. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.
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% (titles only, no descriptions), and the description doesn't compensate. It mentions 'various filters' but doesn't explain what filters are available, how they combine (AND/OR logic), or provide examples. With 13 undocumented parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('rental listings'), specifying it returns a list. It distinguishes from siblings like get_property_listings by focusing on rentals, but doesn't explicitly contrast with get_rental_listing_by_id or other rental-specific 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_rental_listing_by_id (for single listings) or get_property_listings (which might include sales). The description mentions 'various filters' but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate versus using other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool with siblings and no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter 'listing_id' is used to retrieve 'a specific sale listing', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's minimal coverage (0%). With only one parameter, this is sufficient to earn a baseline 4, as it compensates for the low schema coverage.
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?
The description states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific sale listing by ID'), which is clear but vague about scope. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_sale_listings' or 'get_property_record_by_id', leaving ambiguity about what makes a 'sale listing' different from a 'property record'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_sale_listings' (for multiple listings) and 'get_property_record_by_id' (possibly overlapping functionality), the description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context about potential API limitations based on subscription tier, which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like response format, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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 perfectly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by an important caveat. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without any wasted words or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the core purpose and a key limitation, but doesn't address what the return value looks like, error handling, or how to interpret results. For a tool that fetches estimates, more guidance on output expectations would be helpful.
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?
The description mentions 'for a specific property' which implies the need for a property identifier, but doesn't explicitly reference the 'property_id' parameter or provide any semantic context beyond what's obvious from the parameter name. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description adds minimal value over the bare 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get rent estimate for a specific property.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('rent estimate'), and scope ('for a specific property'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_property_valuation' or 'get_property_data', which might also provide related property information.
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 description provides implied usage guidance through the note about API limitations: 'RentCast API may return basic property data instead of detailed rent estimates depending on subscription tier.' This suggests when the tool might not be fully effective, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_property_valuation' or provide clear prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond basic functionality by warning about potential limitations: 'RentCast API may return basic property data instead of detailed valuations depending on subscription tier.' This informs the agent about variability in output based on external factors, which is crucial for managing expectations, though it doesn't cover other aspects like error handling or rate limits.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and a key behavioral trait (subscription tier impact), but lacks details on parameters, output format, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it adequate but not fully comprehensive for reliable agent use.
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?
The description does not mention the 'property_id' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in both the schema and description. However, since there is only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the tool's purpose implies that 'property_id' identifies the property, but no specific details (e.g., format, source) are provided, leaving a gap in understanding.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get valuation data for a specific property.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('valuation data for a specific property'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_rent_estimate' or 'get_property_data', which might offer overlapping functionality.
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 description provides some implied usage guidance by noting that 'RentCast API may return basic property data instead of detailed valuations depending on subscription tier.' This suggests when results might be limited, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_property_data' or 'get_rent_estimate', nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rentcast-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robcerda/rentcast-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robcerda/rentcast-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rentcast-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robcerda/rentcast-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robcerda/rentcast-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/robcerda/rentcast-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server