@sedis/mcp

Official

by sedis-ab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

List reference zones (shared)

fastighetsbenchmark_list_reference_zones

Read-only

List shared reference zones for market benchmarking. Compare your own zones against external-provider benchmarks like Nils Holgersson, filter by name, and access read-only data.

Instructions

Read-only. List the SHARED Sedis-owned reference zones — the same for every key, with NO tenant filter (these are not your private data). Each row exposes its sedisId, name, and sourceName (the external-reference provider, e.g. 'Nils Holgersson'). Use a reference zone as a market benchmark to compare against your own comparison zones and property units. Example: nameContains 'Stockholm'. Shared reference data; read-only — never writes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	1-indexed result page (first page = 1), e.g. 1.
`sort`	No	Comma-separated sort fields; prefix '-' for descending, e.g. '-name'.
`pageSize`	No	Rows per page (v2 default 50, max 500), e.g. 50.
`nameContains`	No	Case-insensitive reference-zone-name fragment, e.g. 'Stockholm'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Shared Sedis-owned reference zones (identical for every key).
`page`	Yes	The page you are on (1-indexed).
`pageSize`	No	Rows per page echoed back by v2, e.g. 50.
`totalCount`	No	Total matching rows across all pages; null/absent when count is skipped.
`totalPages`	No	Total page count; null/absent when count is skipped.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv1.1.6Sep 10, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
- removedOutput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / insertedOnUtc / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / insertedOnUtc / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / lastUpdatedUtc / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / lastUpdatedUtc / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / sourceName / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / sourceName / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedv1.1.5Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' and 'never writes' statements reinforce rather than add new safety information. However, the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that data is 'shared for every key' and has 'NO tenant filter', which is a non-obvious trait not captured by the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 tightly written with no fluff. The most critical information (read-only, shared, no tenant filter) is front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: output fields, use case, and an example. No unnecessary repetition or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is simple (list with optional filters) and the output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The description covers the tool's purpose, data scope, example usage, and output field semantics. Pagination is handled by the schema (page/pageSize). Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete usage example ('Example: nameContains 'Stockholm'') which clarifies how to apply the nameContains parameter, and it mentions the output fields (sedisId, name, sourceName), providing helpful context for what the parameters filter. This example-driven guidance adds value beyond the schema, raising the score to 4.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('SHARED Sedis-owned reference zones'), and explicitly distinguishes these from private data by noting 'NO tenant filter (these are not your private data)'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools that likely operate on tenant-specific data.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use a reference zone as a market benchmark to compare against your own comparison zones and property units.' It implies the tool is for shared reference data, not private data, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it. The distinction from private data is implicit but sufficient.

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

Deploy Server