Skip to main content
Glama

UK Property Data

by io.github.paulieb89

property_epc

Read-only

Energy Performance Certificate data for a UK property or postcode area.

With address: returns the matched EPC certificate for that specific property. Without address: returns the record count and, when the bounded response contains every matching summary, the rating distribution. Property-type breakdown and floor-area statistics are NOT available — the EPC service exposes them only on individual certificates.

Returns null only when no certificates are lodged for the postcode. A null result means no such certificate is lodged. If the EPC service cannot be reached the tool raises an error instead — never treat an error as evidence that a property has no certificate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressNo
postcodeYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Removed value: -"Street address for exact match (omit for area view)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / postcode / description
      Removed value: -"UK postcode (e.g. \"SW1A 1AA\")"
    • removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • addedOutput schema / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "result": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "null"
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+}
    • addedOutput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "result"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
      Added value: +true
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Added value: +"Street address for exact match (omit for area view)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / postcode / description
      Added value: +"UK postcode (e.g. \"SW1A 1AA\")"
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral guidance: the distinction between null (no certificate) and error (service unreachable), the warning never to treat an error as evidence of no certificate, and the note that property-type/floor-area stats are not exposable via this endpoint. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose and method, then behavior nuances. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value, and the blank line separates major ideas. It is appropriately detailed without being redundant.

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 an output schema (not shown) and two parameters, the description thoroughly explains return behaviors in both modes, the null case, and the error case. It also discloses limitations (unavailable statistics) that an agent needs to know. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that postcode is the primary lookup key and that address is optional, and clarifies what each mode returns. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify format constraints or validation rules (e.g., UK postcode format), leaving some ambiguity for edge cases.

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 it returns EPC data for a UK property or postcode area and differentiates two modes: with an address (matched certificate) vs without (record count and rating distribution). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating what is NOT available (property-type breakdown, floor-area statistics) and by clarifying null vs error behavior.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: with an address for a specific certificate, without for aggregate stats. It also explains when null is returned and that errors indicate service failure, not absence of data. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools like property_epc_search or property_epc_summaries, leaving some selection inference to the agent.

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