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

Evaluates asking price vs market data, yield, risk, and contract terms to generate a buy/negotiate/hold/reject decision with red flags 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
prefectureNo都道府県名(和名/英名/ISO 3166-2 コード対応)愛知県
cityYes市区町村(例: '名古屋市中区', '新宿区')
districtNo町丁目・地区名(販売図面から分かる範囲で可)
addressMemoNo販売図面・物件資料に記載された住所メモ
propertyTypeNo物件種別mansion
askingPriceYes売出価格・購入打診価格(円)
negotiablePriceNo交渉後に狙う価格(円)
landAreaSqmNo土地面積(㎡)
buildingAreaSqmNo建物面積(㎡)
exclusiveAreaSqmNo専有面積(㎡)
buildingAgeNo築年数
structureNo構造(RC/SRC/S/木造など)
floorsNo階数
currentAnnualRentNo現況年間賃料(円)
expectedAnnualRentNo想定年間賃料(円)
occupancyRateNo想定稼働率(0-1)
operatingExpenseAnnualNo年間運営費・管理費・修繕費等(円)
renovationCostNo想定リノベ/修繕費(円)
propertyTaxAnnualNo固定資産税等(円/年)
kojiPricePerSqmNo参考公示地価(円/㎡)
rosenkaPricePerSqmNo参考路線価(円/㎡)
transactionMedianPerSqmNo近隣取引相場中央値(円/㎡)
recommenderClaimNo仲介会社・営業担当などが勧めている理由
proposedTermsNo提案中の契約条件
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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decisionYes
decisionLabelYes
overallScoreYes
priceScoreYes
yieldScoreYes
riskScoreYes
futureScoreYes
contractScoreYes
keyNumbersYes
axesYes
redFlagsYes
negotiationPointsYes
missingInformationYes
recommendedClausesYes
dataSourcesYes
markdownReportYes
dashboardUriYes
attributionYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) indicate it's non-destructive. The description adds context by detailing the return (scores, decision, red flags, etc.) and evaluation criteria, which is consistent with readOnlyHint. No contradiction.

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 for a complex tool, covering purpose and output in two sentences (English and Japanese). It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though the bilingual repetition could be seen as slightly redundant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (25 params, output schema exists), the description covers overall purpose and outputs reasonably well. It lacks explicit usage guidelines but is otherwise complete. The output schema handles return details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 25 parameters. The description summarizes the tool's purpose but does not add deeper meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as a real estate purchase review for executives, listing specific evaluations (price, yield, risk, potential, terms) and outputs (5-axis scores, decision, red flags, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like assess_property_risk by its comprehensive scope.

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 implies usage for executive purchase review but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like assess_property_risk or detect_arbitrage_signals. No when-not-to or alternative comparisons are provided.

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