storedge-mcp

by sanjibani

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

list_move_outs

List scheduled move-outs for a facility to see tenants with in-progress departures and manage the move-out pipeline.

Instructions

List scheduled (in-progress) move-outs for the facility.

Use when: "who's moving out this month?", "any move-outs this week?".

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_move_outs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`per_page`	No
`facility_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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. It mentions 'scheduled (in-progress)' which indicates status but does not disclose other behavioral traits like data freshness, authorization needs, or what happens with no results. Adequate for a simple read operation but could be more thorough.

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 very short (two lines) and front-loads the purpose. It uses a clean structure with example queries. However, it could be improved by adding structured parameter details.

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 has 3 parameters (with 0% schema coverage), a simple output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the general purpose and usage examples but lacks parameter documentation, making it incomplete for precise tool 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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only implies facility_id through 'for the facility' but does not explain page, per_page, or facility_id explicitly. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the verb ('List'), resource ('move-outs'), and scope ('scheduled (in-progress)'), distinguishing it clearly from siblings like list_move_ins and list_tenants.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes specific example queries ('who's moving out this month?', 'any move-outs this week?') that provide clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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