Skip to main content
Glama

UK Property Data

by io.github.paulieb89

planning_search

Read-only

Find the council planning portal URL for a postcode.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
postcodeYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / postcode / description
      Removed value: -"UK postcode (e.g. \"S1 1AA\", \"SW1A 2AA\")"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / postcode / description
      Previous value: -"UK postcode to look up planning portal for"New value: +"UK postcode (e.g. \"S1 1AA\", \"SW1A 2AA\")"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / postcode / description
      Previous value: -"UK postcode (e.g. \"S1 1AA\", \"SW1A 2AA\")"New value: +"UK postcode to look up planning portal for"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / postcode / description
      Added value: +"UK postcode (e.g. \"S1 1AA\", \"SW1A 2AA\")"
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the output type (URL) and the input context (postcode), but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as possible variations in output or service dependencies. This is adequate for a simple lookup tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes meaning, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core functionality. It lacks explicit usage context or edge cases, but given the low complexity and the supporting annotations, it is mostly 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 description coverage is 0% for the postcode parameter. The description says 'for a postcode', which merely restates the parameter name and confirms its role as the lookup key. It does not add format or validity details, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource as 'council planning portal URL', scoped to a postcode. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like property_epc or company_search, which target different data. It is a precise and complete statement of the tool's function.

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 the tool should be used when a planning portal URL is needed for a postcode, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since no sibling tool covers planning, this is a minor gap, but the guidance is still only implied rather than explicit.

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

All UK Property Data toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

EPC coverage is split across property_epc, property_epc_summaries, epc_certificate, and the deprecated property_epc_search, but each has a distinct role (aggregate lookup, candidate list, direct certificate, legacy). Land Registry data is similarly split between ppd_transactions and property_comps with clear output differences; no two tools are truly interchangeable.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and consistently lowercase snake_case, but they mix resource nouns (epc_certificate, stamp_duty), prefixed nouns (property_epc_summaries, rightmove_listing), and noun-verb forms (company_search, planning_search). The 'search' suffix is used for different actions, and there is no uniform verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count4/5

14 tools is within the appropriate range for a multi-source property data API. The count is slightly padded by the deprecated property_epc_search and the narrowly scoped planning_search/company_search, but most tools cover distinct data products.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core property workflows: Rightmove listing discovery/detail, EPC search/detail, Land Registry transactions/comps, yield/rent analysis, stamp duty, and planning portal lookup. Minor gaps exist (no planning application details, no property-level title/ownership lookup), but agents can complete common research tasks without dead ends.

Resources