Skip to main content
Glama
tonywang0122

買屋快搜

by tonywang0122
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.3.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    兩個工具功能明確區分：house_search 用於列表搜尋，house_get_detail 用於單一物件詳細資料。彼此沒有重疊，代理可清楚選擇。

    Naming Consistency5/5

    兩個工具皆以 house_ 前綴開頭，後接動詞（search、get_detail），命名模式一致且易於預測。

    Tool Count4/5

    工具數量僅 2 個，略少於典型 3-15 個的範圍，但對於僅需搜尋與查看詳情的房屋查詢服務而言，已足夠且合理。

    Completeness5/5

    涵蓋房屋查詢的主要流程：先透過 house_search 取得物件列表與篩選條件，再透過 house_get_detail 取得完整細節。此為唯讀服務，沒有明顯缺漏的操作。

  • Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 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

  • 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 explains the return structure (pagination, statistics, item fields) and parameter filtering behavior, which is transparent about what the tool returns. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a search tool, the read-only nature is clear.

    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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by a structured return format summary and a parameter list. Despite its length, every sentence adds necessary detail, with no wasted words. The clear sections and parameter enumeration make it appropriately sized for a tool with 15 parameters.

    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 (15 parameters, varied filter options, output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all parameters with examples, describes return structures, and provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional information. The presence of an output schema is leveraged, while the description adds essential parameter details.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by providing exhaustive semantics for all 15 parameters. Each parameter includes allowed values, examples, and context (e.g., city codes, zip mappings, type definitions). This goes well beyond the minimal schema titles and defaults, giving the agent complete guidance 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 '搜尋房屋物件列表' (search house object list), which is a specific verb (search) and resource (house object list). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool house_get_detail by focusing on list retrieval with filters, making its purpose unambiguous.

    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 extensive filter details, implying it is used for searching and filtering house listings. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus house_get_detail, nor does it state exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it 'returns all public information' and enumerates a comprehensive list of returned categories, making the behavior transparent. It also discloses that a house URL can be passed and the number is auto-extracted, adding input flexibility. This goes beyond a generic 'retrieve details' statement.

    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 lengthy due to the enumerated return categories, but it is well-structured with a clear opening statement and labeled sections. Each category informs the agent about available data, which is valuable for a detail endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose first, and the Args section is concise.

    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 has only one parameter and no annotations, the description provides thorough guidance: parameter source, alternative input, and a comprehensive overview of returned data. The sibling tool house_search is referenced appropriately. There is little ambiguity about what the tool does and how to use it.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema only defines house_no as a required string with no description. The description adds substantial meaning: it specifies the format (e.g., '1083GN'), the source (house_search's id field), and an alternative input type (URL with auto-extraction). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

    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 opens with a clear statement of purpose: '查詢單一房屋物件的完整明細' (query complete details of a single house object). It specifies a specific verb (query) and resource (single house details), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool house_search by requiring a single house identifier and referencing house_search as the source for that identifier.

    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 Args section explicitly instructs that house_no is obtained from house_search results' id field, implying this tool is for post-search detail lookup on a specific property. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the reference to house_search provides sufficient contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool versus searching.

    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

house-search-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

house-search-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/tonywang0122/house-search-mcp'

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