Skip to main content
Glama
sugukurukabe

japan-real-estate-intel

購入候補物件レビュー

review_purchase_recommendation
Read-only

Assesses asking price against land values, yield, and risks to recommend buy, negotiate, hold, or reject, with scores and negotiation points.

Instructions

Real estate purchase review for executives: evaluates asking price vs 公示地価/路線価/取引相場, yield (gross/net), risk (vacancy/aging/disaster), future potential, and contract terms. Returns 5-axis scores, decision (buy/negotiate/hold/reject), red flags, negotiation points, and recommended clauses. | 不動産屋経営者向け購入審査:販売価格 vs 公示地価・路線価・取引相場、利回り、リスク、将来性、契約条件を5軸評価。判断(購入/交渉/保留/非推奨)、レッドフラグ、交渉ポイント、推奨特約条項を返却。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYes市区町村(例: '名古屋市中区', '新宿区')
floorsNo階数
districtNo町丁目・地区名(販売図面から分かる範囲で可)
structureNo構造(RC/SRC/S/木造など)
prefectureNo都道府県名(和名/英名/ISO 3166-2 コード対応)愛知県
addressMemoNo販売図面・物件資料に記載された住所メモ
askingPriceYes売出価格・購入打診価格(円)
buildingAgeNo築年数
landAreaSqmNo土地面積(㎡)
output_modeNoOutput verbosity. compact=TL;DR + key numbers only (default), detailed=full Markdown report | 出力詳細度。compact=主要数値のみ(デフォルト)、detailed=全文レポート付きcompact
propertyTypeNo物件種別mansion
occupancyRateNo想定稼働率(0-1)
proposedTermsNo提案中の契約条件
renovationCostNo想定リノベ/修繕費(円)
buildingAreaSqmNo建物面積(㎡)
kojiPricePerSqmNo参考公示地価(円/㎡)
negotiablePriceNo交渉後に狙う価格(円)
exclusiveAreaSqmNo専有面積(㎡)
recommenderClaimNo仲介会社・営業担当などが勧めている理由
currentAnnualRentNo現況年間賃料(円)
propertyTaxAnnualNo固定資産税等(円/年)
expectedAnnualRentNo想定年間賃料(円)
rosenkaPricePerSqmNo参考路線価(円/㎡)
operatingExpenseAnnualNo年間運営費・管理費・修繕費等(円)
transactionMedianPerSqmNo近隣取引相場中央値(円/㎡)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
axesYes
decisionYes
redFlagsYes
riskScoreYes
keyNumbersYes
priceScoreYes
yieldScoreYes
attributionYes
dataSourcesYes
futureScoreYes
dashboardUriYes
overallScoreYes
contractScoreYes
decisionLabelYes
markdownReportYes
negotiationPointsYes
missingInformationYes
recommendedClausesYes
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations mark the tool as read-only, and the description aligns by describing it as a 'review' and 'evaluation'. It adds transparency about the output: scores, decision, red flags, negotiation points, and recommended clauses, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise with two short paragraphs (English and Japanese), front-loading the core purpose and output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (25 parameters, nested objects, 24 siblings), the description captures all major evaluation axes and output types. It refers to the output schema indirectly, and the schema covers parameter details, making the description complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it provides high-level context on how parameters are used in the evaluation (e.g., price vs benchmarks, yield, risk). No additional value for individual parameters.

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 tool's purpose: a real estate purchase review for executives that evaluates price, yield, risk, potential, and contract terms. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects (e.g., assess_contract_risk, analyze_commute_accessibility) by offering a comprehensive 5-axis evaluation.

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 indicates the tool is for executives and provides a clear overview of inputs and outputs. It implies usage for comprehensive purchase decisions, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or list alternative tools, though sibling names give context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/sugukurukabe/japan-real-estate-intel-mcp'

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