Package is distributed via PyPI as 'bach-idealista7', allowing installation and management through pip package manager.
Provides access to the Idealista7 API through RapidAPI, enabling property searches across Spain, Portugal, and Italy for homes, apartments, garages, commercial properties, offices, and land listings with detailed filtering and property information retrieval.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Idealista7 MCP Server search for apartments for rent in Madrid under €1,000 per month"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
用于访问 Idealista（西班牙最大房产网站）API 的 MCP 服务器。支持搜索房屋、公寓、车库、商业地产、办公室等多种房产类型。
EMCP 是一个强大的 MCP 服务器管理平台，让您无需手动配置即可快速使用各种 MCP 服务器！
🌐 访问 EMCP 平台
📝 注册并登录账号
🎯 进入 MCP 广场，浏览所有可用的 MCP 服务器
🔍 搜索或找到本服务器（bach-idealista7）
🎉 点击 "安装 MCP" 按钮
✅ 完成！即可在您的应用中使用
✨ 零配置：无需手动编辑配置文件
🎨 可视化管理：图形界面轻松管理所有 MCP 服务器
🔐 安全可靠：统一管理 API 密钥和认证信息
🚀 一键安装：MCP 广场提供丰富的服务器选择
📊 使用统计：实时查看服务调用情况
立即访问 EMCP 平台 开始您的 MCP 之旅！
Related MCP server: Zoopla MCP Server
这是一个 MCP 服务器，用于访问 Idealista7 API，提供西班牙、葡萄牙、意大利的房产搜索功能。
PyPI 包名: bach-idealista7
版本: 2.0.0
传输协议: stdio
pip install bach-idealista7pip install -e .# 设置环境变量
export API_KEY="your_api_key_here"
# 运行（uvx 会自动安装并运行）
uvx --from bach-idealista7 bach_idealista7# 安装
pip install bach-idealista7
# 设置环境变量
export API_KEY="your_api_key_here"
# 运行（命令名使用下划线）
bach_idealista7此 API 需要 RapidAPI 密钥认证。请在 RapidAPI 获取 API 密钥后设置环境变量:
export API_KEY="your_api_key_here"变量名 | 说明 | 必需 |
| RapidAPI 密钥 | 是 |
编辑 Cursor MCP 配置文件 ~/.cursor/mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"bach-idealista7": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--from", "bach-idealista7", "bach_idealista7"],
"env": {
"API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}编辑 Claude Desktop 配置文件 claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"bach-idealista7": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--from", "bach-idealista7", "bach_idealista7"],
"env": {
"API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}此服务器提供以下 15 个工具:
list_home_properties搜索房屋/公寓列表。支持买卖/租赁，可按价格、面积、卧室数量、设施等多种条件筛选。
端点: GET /listhomes
主要参数:
order (string) 必需: 排序方式: relevance|lowestprice|highestprice|mostrecent 等
operation (string) 必需: 操作类型: sale|rent
locationId (string) 必需: 位置 ID，如: 0-EU-ES-28-07-001-079
locationName (string) 必需: 位置名称，如: Madrid
location (string) 必需: 国家代码: es|pt|it
locale (string) 必需: 语言: es|it|pt|en|ca|de|fr|nl|nb
list_storage_rooms搜索储藏室列表。
端点: GET /liststoragerooms
list_buildings搜索建筑物列表。
端点: GET /listbuildings
list_lands搜索土地列表。支持城市用地、建筑用地、非建筑用地筛选。
端点: GET /listlands
property_details获取房产详细信息。
端点: GET /propertydetails
参数:
propertyId (string) 必需: 房产 ID
location (string) 必需: 国家代码: es|pt|it
language (string) 必需: 语言: en, es, it, pt, ca, de, fr, nl, nb
list_garages搜索车库/停车位列表。
端点: GET /listgarages
get_sublocations获取某个位置下的子位置列表。
端点: GET /getlocations
get_microsite_profile获取房产中介的个人资料信息。
端点: GET /getmicrositeprofile
get_microsite_locations获取房产中介有房源的位置列表。
端点: GET /getmicrositelocations
list_commercial_properties搜索商业地产列表。包括店铺、工业建筑、仓库等。
端点: GET /listcommercialproperties
list_offices搜索办公室列表。
端点: GET /listoffices
list_rooms搜索出租房间列表。支持合租相关筛选。
端点: GET /listrooms
list_new_homes搜索新房列表。
端点: GET /listnewhomes
get_suggestions获取位置搜索建议（自动补全）。
端点: GET /getsuggestions
🇪🇸 西班牙 (es)
🇵🇹 葡萄牙 (pt)
🇮🇹 意大利 (it)
传输协议: stdio
HTTP 客户端: httpx
MIT License - 详见 LICENSE 文件。
此服务器由 API-to-MCP 工具生成。
版本: 2.0.0
Get the locations where the microsite/profile has properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | Yes | Language: es|it|pt|en|ca|de|fr|nl|nb | |
| location | Yes | One of the following values: es|pt|it | |
| operation | Yes | Example value: sale | |
| locationId | Yes | Example value: 0-EU-ES-28 | |
| micrositeShortName | Yes | Example value: sumainmobiliaria |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Get the locations...' with no disclosure of behavioral traits, required permissions, or side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-ends the purpose. No wasted words, but could benefit from more detail given the number of parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain key aspects like the relationship between locationId and location, or how operation affects results. Incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing basic info for each parameter (e.g., enum values for locale, location). However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves locations for a microsite/profile, distinguishing it from property-specific list tools. However, 'locations' could be more precisely defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like get_sublocations or property list tools. The description does not mention scenarios where this is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get Microsite profile information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | Example value: | |
| micrositeShortName | Yes | Microsite ShortName is the identifier of every real estate profile. You may find it in the URL: idealista.com/pro/sierra-blanca-estates-realty/ |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention if the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. The description is too brief to provide transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded, but the lack of detail makes it too sparse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the profile contains or any return value. Sibling tools likely have richer descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the schema itself provides a meaningful description for 'micrositeShortName' but an empty one for 'location'. The tool description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get Microsite profile information', which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (microsite profile). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_microsite_locations' by specifying 'profile', though it could be more specific about what profile information includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_microsite_locations' or 'property_details'. There is no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get sublocations inside another location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | One of the following values: es|pt|it | |
| operation | Yes | Changes the 'total' field which indicates the number of properties with this operation. | |
| locationId | Yes | Location Id that has the flag divisible=true. | |
| propertyType | Yes | Changes the 'total' field which indicates the number of properties of this type. Note: bedrooms only works with rent operation. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the basic purpose. It does not disclose behavioral traits like required input conditions (e.g., divisible=true), or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for its simplicity, but could include more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations. Description fails to explain return format, pagination, or how to interpret results. For a tool with 4 required params, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, which are already present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get sublocations inside another location', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_microsite_locations, leaving ambiguity about what 'sublocations' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_microsite_locations or list_* tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get location suggestions (autocomplete)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | Yes | Example value: madrid | |
| location | Yes | One of the following values: es|pt|it | |
| operation | Yes | Changes the 'total' field which indicates the number of properties with this operation. | |
| propertyType | Yes | Changes the 'total' field which indicates the number of properties of this type. Note: bedrooms only works with rent operation. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is expected to disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get location suggestions' but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, or if parameters like 'operation' and 'propertyType' have side effects (as hinted in schema descriptions). The lack of clarity on side effects reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the output structure, how parameters influence results, or distinguish the tool from many sibling tools related to locations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions add some context (e.g., example for 'prefix', valid values for 'location'), but they are brief and partially cryptic (e.g., 'Changes the total field'). Minimal added value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves location suggestions for autocomplete. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_microsite_locations' or 'get_sublocations', which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Buildings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Example value: | |
| locale | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxSize | No | Example value: | 0 |
| minSize | No | Example value: | 0 |
| numPage | Yes | Example value: 1 | 1 |
| location | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxItems | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| minPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| operation | Yes | Example value: | |
| sinceDate | No | Publication Date Parameter. One of the following values. Indifferent: leave blank (by default) | Last 24h: T (Rent operation only) | Last 48h: Y (Buy operation only) | Last week: W | Last month: M | |
| locationId | Yes | Example value: 0-EU-ES-28-07-001-079 | |
| locationName | Yes | Example value: Madrid | |
| micrositeShortName | No | Example value: |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and the description provides no behavioral details (e.g., pagination, filtering, authentication requirements). The description is merely the tool name, offering no insight into how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Excessively brief; under-specification is not conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single sentence is too vague to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 14 parameters, no output schema, and zero guidance, the description is wholly inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is 100%, most parameter descriptions are empty placeholders ('Example value: '). Only 'sinceDate' has meaningful info. The description adds no parameter explanation beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Buildings' identifies the action and resource but lacks specificity to differentiate from sibling tools like list_home_properties or list_offices. It does not clarify scope or uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list_ tools). No context about prerequisites or ideal scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Commercial Properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Example value: | |
| locale | Yes | Example value: | |
| retail | No | Example value: | |
| street | No | Example value: | |
| maxSize | No | Example value: | |
| minSize | No | Example value: | |
| numPage | Yes | Example value: 1 | 1 |
| catering | No | Example value: | |
| location | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxItems | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxPrice | No | Example value: | |
| minPrice | No | Example value: | |
| pharmacy | No | Example value: | |
| premises | No | Example value: | |
| foodTrade | No | Example value: | |
| mezzanine | No | Example value: | |
| newsstand | No | Example value: | |
| operation | Yes | Example value: | |
| sinceDate | No | Publication Date Parameter. One of the following values. Indifferent: leave blank (by default) | Last 24h: T (Rent operation only) | Last 48h: Y (Buy operation only) | Last week: W | Last month: M | |
| laboratory | No | Example value: | |
| locationId | Yes | Example value: 0-EU-ES-28-07-001-079 | |
| ontopfloor | No | Example value: | |
| storehouse | No | Example value: | |
| tobaccoShop | No | Example value: | |
| underground | No | Example value: | |
| locationName | Yes | Example value: Madrid | |
| accommodation | No | Example value: | |
| otherLocations | No | Example value: | |
| shoppingcenter | No | Example value: | |
| barsAndNightclub | No | Example value: | |
| sportsFacilities | No | Example value: | |
| educationalCenter | No | Example value: | |
| saleWarehouseOnly | No | Example value: | |
| aestheticAndBeauty | No | Example value: | |
| industrialBuilding | No | Example value: | |
| professionalServices | No | Example value: | |
| otherCommercialActivities | No | Example value: | |
| saleWarehouseThirdPartiesRented | No | Example value: | |
| saleWarehouseWithBusinessTransfer | No | Example value: |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It merely says 'List' but does not disclose pagination, performance, rate limits, or any side effects. The tool likely returns a list of properties but the description is silent on what 'list' entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only 4 words long and fails to convey any useful information. It is severely underspecified, making it virtually useless for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 39 parameters, no output schema, and a trivial description, it is completely inadequate. An agent needs far more context about parameter usage, response format, and filtering behavior to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 39 parameters with 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are mostly empty 'Example value: ' placeholders, providing no actual semantic meaning. The main description adds no information about the parameters, so the agent cannot infer which parameters are filters or how they relate to the commercial properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Commercial Properties' is essentially a tautology, restating the tool name without adding any specific or distinguishing information. It does not clarify what kind of properties or what operations are involved beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., list_home_properties, list_offices). The description does not mention filtering criteria, typical use cases, or any context that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List garages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Order by one of the followings: relevance|lowestprice|highestprice|mostrecent|leastrecent|highestpricereduction|lowestpricem2|highestpricem2|biggest|smallest|highestfloors|lowestfloors Default is relevance. | |
| locale | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxSize | No | Example value: | 0 |
| minSize | No | Example value: | 0 |
| numPage | Yes | Example value: 1 | 1 |
| location | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxItems | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| minPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| security | No | Example value: | |
| operation | Yes | Example value: | |
| sinceDate | No | Publication Date Parameter. One of the following values. Indifferent: leave blank (by default) | Last 24h: T (Rent operation only) | Last 48h: Y (Buy operation only) | Last week: W | Last month: M | |
| locationId | Yes | Example value: 0-EU-ES-28-07-001-079 | |
| locationName | Yes | Example value: Madrid | |
| automaticDoor | No | Example value: | |
| motorcycleParking | No | Example value: | |
| micrositeShortName | No | Get ads from a specific real estate. For example if the URL from the real estate is: https://www.idealista.com/pro/cajal-gestion-inmobiliaria/ The parameter micrositeShortName should be cajal-gestion-inmobiliaria |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, data freshness, rate limits, or side effects. The agent has no insight into how the tool operates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but at the cost of informativeness. It is under-specified, lacking any structure or front-loaded key information. Effective conciseness should balance brevity with clarity, which is missing here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 17 parameters, 8 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain what properties are returned, how sorting works, or any prerequisite conditions. The agent cannot effectively use this tool without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but many parameter descriptions are uninformative (e.g., 'Example value: ' with empty values). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for poor parameter documentation. Agent would struggle to correctly fill parameters like 'locale' or 'location'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'List garages' is a tautology that restates the name without adding any specificity. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like list_buildings or list_home_properties, as it does not clarify what a 'garage' is in this context (likely parking spaces).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no discussion of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List home properties with the requested parameters. Buy/Rent \u003e Homes. Filters are optional parameters, please make sure the request follows the rules in each parameter. Boolean parameters should be true always if you want to use them. To make them false, don't include them in the requests (leave blank).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flat | No | Example value: | |
| good | No | Example value: | |
| order | Yes | Order by one of the followings: relevance|lowestprice|highestprice|mostrecent|leastrecent|highestpricereduction|lowestpricem2|highestpricem2|biggest|smallest|highestfloors|lowestfloors Default is relevance. | |
| renew | No | Example value: | |
| chalet | No | Example value: | |
| duplex | No | Example value: | |
| garage | No | Example value: | |
| garden | No | Example value: | |
| isFree | No | Example value: | |
| locale | Yes | The language of the ads. Pick between: es|it|pt|en|ca|de|fr|nl|nb | |
| luxury | No | Example value: | |
| hasPlan | No | Example value: | |
| maxSize | No | Maximum size to search in m2. | 0 |
| minSize | No | Minimum size to search in m2. | 0 |
| numPage | Yes | Example value: 1 | 1 |
| elevator | No | Example value: | |
| exterior | No | Example value: | |
| location | Yes | One of the following values: es|pt|it | |
| loftType | No | Example value: | |
| maxItems | Yes | Number of items to return. Set 0 to return the item's count, fast response. Max Value is 40, anything above will be ignored. | |
| maxPrice | No | Maximum price to search. | 0 |
| minPrice | No | Minimum price to search. | 0 |
| terrance | No | Example value: | |
| topFloor | No | Example value: | |
| bankOffer | No | Example value: | |
| bathroom3 | No | Example value: | |
| bedrooms0 | No | Example value: | |
| bedrooms1 | No | Example value: | |
| bedrooms2 | No | Example value: | |
| bedrooms3 | No | Example value: | |
| bedrooms4 | No | Example value: | |
| furnished | No | Furnishings parameter. ONLY valid when operation=rent. Pick between. Indifferent: leave blank (default) | Furnished: furnished | Only furnished kitchens: furnishedKitchen | |
| onlyFlats | No | Example value: | |
| operation | Yes | Search sales or rentals. Pick between: sale|rent | |
| penthouse | No | Example value: | |
| shortTerm | No | Example value: | |
| sinceDate | No | Publication Date Parameter. One of the following values. Indifferent: leave blank (by default) | Last 24h: T (Rent operation only) | Last 48h: Y (Buy operation only) | Last week: W | Last month: M | |
| storeRoom | No | Example value: | |
| villaType | No | Example value: | |
| accessible | No | Example value: | |
| bathrooms1 | No | Example value: | |
| bathrooms2 | No | Example value: | |
| isTenanted | No | Example value: | |
| locationId | Yes | Example value: 0-EU-ES-28-07-001-079 | |
| cortijoType | No | Example value: | |
| petsAllowed | No | Example value: | |
| virtualTour | No | Example value: | |
| casaBajaType | No | Example value: | |
| countryHouse | No | Example value: | |
| locationName | Yes | Example value: Madrid | |
| swimmingPool | No | Example value: | |
| terracedHouse | No | Example value: | |
| newDevelopment | No | Example value: | |
| airConditioning | No | Example value: | |
| apartamentoType | No | Example value: | |
| atticStudioType | No | Example value: | |
| isBareOwnership | No | Example value: | |
| builtinWardrobes | No | Example value: | |
| independantHouse | No | Example value: | |
| intermediateFloor | No | Example value: | |
| semidetachedHouse | No | Example value: | |
| micrositeShortName | No | Get ads from a specific real estate. For example if the URL from the real estate is: https://www.idealista.com/pro/cajal-gestion-inmobiliaria/ The parameter micrositeShortName should be cajal-gestion-inmobiliaria | |
| isIllegallyOccupied | No | Example value: | |
| longTermResidential | No | Example value: |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description fails to disclose readOnly/destructive nature, pagination behavior (except maxItems hint), or any side effects. Minimal beyond listing function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Short description with clear sentences; no fluff, though could be more structured with bullet points given high parameter count.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
64 parameters, no output schema, no annotations; description omits output format, error handling, and comprehensive parameter interactions, leaving agents underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but many descriptions are empty 'Example value: '. Description adds context for boolean usage and maxItems limit, but doesn't elaborate on many parameters beyond schema defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'list' and resource 'home properties'; context 'Buy/Rent > Homes' distinguishes from sibling tools for other property types like commercial, garages, lands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides instructions on handling boolean parameters (include true, omit for false) and general filter optionality, but lacks explicit guidance when to use this tool over siblings like list_commercial_properties.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Lands
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Example value: | |
| urban | No | Example value: | |
| locale | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxSize | No | Example value: | 0 |
| minSize | No | Example value: | 0 |
| numPage | Yes | Example value: 1 | 1 |
| location | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxItems | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| minPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| operation | Yes | Example value: | |
| sinceDate | No | Publication Date Parameter. One of the following values. Indifferent: leave blank (by default) | Last 24h: T (Rent operation only) | Last 48h: Y (Buy operation only) | Last week: W | Last month: M | |
| locationId | Yes | Example value: 0-EU-ES-28-07-001-079 | |
| buildingLand | No | Example value: | |
| locationName | Yes | Example value: Madrid | |
| nonBuildingLand | No | Example value: | |
| micrositeShortName | No | Example value: |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'List Lands'. No information on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or read-only status is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (2 words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks necessary detail to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 17 parameters (8 required) and no output schema or meaningful description, the tool definition is completely inadequate. It fails to explain functionality, usage, or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which mostly has empty descriptions. Thus, it does not improve clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Lands' is a tautology, merely restating the tool name. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'Land' in this context or distinguish it from sibling tools like list_buildings or list_commercial_properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List new home properties with the requested parameters. Buy/Rent \u003e New home. Filters are optional parameters, please make sure the request follows the rules in each parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flats | No | Example value: | |
| order | Yes | Order by one of the followings: relevance|lowestprice|highestprice|mostrecent|leastrecent|highestpricereduction|lowestpricem2|highestpricem2|biggest|smallest|highestfloors|lowestfloors Default is relevance. | |
| locale | Yes | Example value: | |
| numPage | Yes | Example value: 1 | |
| finished | No | Example value: | |
| location | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxItems | Yes | Example value: 40 | |
| maxPrice | No | Example value: | |
| minPrice | No | Example value: | |
| bankOffer | No | Example value: | |
| bedrooms0 | No | Example value: | |
| bedrooms1 | No | Example value: | |
| bedrooms2 | No | Example value: | |
| bedrooms3 | No | Example value: | |
| bedrooms4 | No | Example value: | |
| operation | Yes | Search sales or rentals. Pick between: sale|rent | |
| rentToOwn | No | Example value: | |
| locationId | Yes | Example value: 0-EU-ES-28-07-001-079 | |
| locationName | Yes | Example value: Madrid | |
| housesOrChalets | No | Example value: | |
| stateSubsidized | No | Example value: |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says to follow parameter rules, but omits details like pagination, result format, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences front-loading the purpose. While efficient, it could be better structured with distinct sections for usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count, required fields, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what constitutes a 'new home,' how filtering works, and what the response provides, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, most parameter descriptions are empty placeholders. The tool description adds no meaningful semantic help beyond the schema, failing to clarify usage or format for the 21 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists new home properties, identifying the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_home_properties, which might also list new homes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filters are optional but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List office properties with the requested parameters. Buy/Rent \u003e Offices. Filters are optional parameters, please make sure the request follows the rules in each parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Example value: | |
| garage | No | Example value: | |
| layout | No | Distribution parameter. Pick between: Indifferent: leave blank (default) Open plan: openPlan Divided by walls: withWalls | |
| locale | Yes | Example value: | |
| hasPlan | No | Example value: | |
| heating | No | Example value: | |
| maxSize | No | Example value: | 0 |
| minSize | No | Example value: | 0 |
| numPage | Yes | Example value: 1 | 1 |
| elevator | No | Example value: | |
| exterior | No | Example value: | |
| hotWater | No | Example value: | |
| location | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxItems | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| minPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| security | No | Example value: | |
| bankOffer | No | Bank-owned | |
| operation | Yes | Search sales or rentals. Pick between: sale|rent | |
| sinceDate | No | Publication Date Parameter. One of the following values. Indifferent: leave blank (by default) | Last 24h: T (Rent operation only) | Last 48h: Y (Buy operation only) | Last week: W | Last month: M | |
| accessible | No | Example value: | |
| locationId | Yes | Example value: 0-EU-ES-28-07-001-079 | |
| buildingType | No | Type of building parameter. Pick between: Indifferent: leave blank (default) Exclusively for offices: exclusive Mixted use: mixed | |
| locationName | Yes | Example value: Madrid | |
| airConditioning | No | Example value: |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'List' implying read-only, but does not explicit state non-destructiveness or confirm no side effects. The warning to follow parameter rules adds some context but not behavioral depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, straight to the point: purpose and a caution. Could include more detail without being too long, but it's efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (25 parameters, 8 required) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description fails to explain output format, pagination, or sorting. It leaves too much to the agent's inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema description coverage is 100%, most are minimal ('Example value: ') adding no real meaning. The description only generically warns to follow parameter rules without clarifying specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'office properties', and specifies the category 'Buy/Rent > Offices'. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_buildings or list_commercial_properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filters are optional and advises to follow parameter rules, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_commercial_properties). Implied usage is for office listings only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List renting rooms with the requested parameters. Buy, Rent \u003e Rooms or Share \u003e Homes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Order by one of the followings: relevance|lowestprice|highestprice|mostrecent|leastrecent|highestpricereduction|lowestpricem2|highestpricem2|biggest|smallest|highestfloors|lowestfloors Default is relevance. | |
| garden | No | Example value: | |
| locale | Yes | Example value: | |
| numPage | Yes | Example value: 1 | 1 |
| terrace | No | Example value: | |
| elevator | No | Example value: | |
| exterior | No | Example value: | |
| location | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxItems | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| minPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| topFloor | No | Example value: | |
| newGender | No | 'You are' parameter (your gender). Pick between: male|female | |
| sinceDate | No | Publication Date Parameter. One of the following values. Indifferent: leave blank (by default) | Last 48h: Y (Buy operation only) | Last week: W | Last month: M | |
| accessible | No | Example value: | |
| locationId | Yes | Example value: 0-EU-ES-28-07-001-079 | |
| occupation | No | Flat sharing with... Pick one of these: Indifferent: leave blank (default) With workers: workers With students: students | |
| petsPolicy | No | Pets. Pick between: Indifferent: leave blank (default) Pets allowed: allowed Pets not allowed: disallowed | |
| gayPartners | No | Example value: | |
| groundFloor | No | Example value: | |
| housemates1 | No | Example value: | |
| housemates2 | No | Example value: | |
| housemates3 | No | Example value: | |
| locationName | Yes | Example value: Madrid | |
| privateOwner | No | Example value: | |
| swimmingPool | No | Example value: | |
| availableFrom | No | Date the room is available. Pick between: Any date: leave blank (default) Available now: now +1 month since now: 1m +2 months since now: 2m +3 months since now: 3m +4 months since now: 4m +5 months since now: 5m | |
| privateToilet | No | Example value: | |
| smokingPolicy | No | Pick between: Indiferent: leave blank (default) | Smoking allowed: allowed | Smoking is not allowed: disallowed | |
| couplesAllowed | No | Example value: | |
| hasHouseKeeper | No | Example value: | |
| ownerNotLiving | No | Example value: | |
| airConditioning | No | Example value: | |
| childrenAllowed | No | Example value: | |
| streetViewWindow | No | Example value: | |
| intermediateFloor | No | Example value: |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting behavior, or rate limits. Only generic 'with the requested parameters' is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, no redundant information. Front-loaded with action and resource, then navigation path. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 36 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too brief. It does not explain return format, pagination, parameter interactions, or when to use specific filters. Insufficient for a complex filtering tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, many parameter descriptions are just 'Example value: ' with no semantics. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is weak for several parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists renting rooms and includes navigation path 'Buy, Rent > Rooms or Share > Homes.' It identifies the resource and action, though could be more specific about the exact operation (rent vs share) to avoid overlap with sibling tools like list_home_properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., list_home_properties). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The context is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Storage Rooms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Example value: | |
| locale | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxSize | No | Example value: | 0 |
| minSize | No | Example value: | 0 |
| numPage | Yes | Example value: 1 | 1 |
| location | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxItems | Yes | Example value: | |
| maxPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| minPrice | No | Example value: | 0 |
| operation | Yes | Example value: | |
| sinceDate | No | Publication Date Parameter. One of the following values. Indifferent: leave blank (by default) | Last 24h: T (Rent operation only) | Last 48h: Y (Buy operation only) | Last week: W | Last month: M | |
| locationId | Yes | Example value: 0-EU-ES-28-07-001-079 | |
| locationName | Yes | Example value: Madrid | |
| micrositeShortName | No | Example value: |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only 'List', implying read-only, but gives no details about pagination, filtering scope, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (2 words) but qualifies as under-specification, not conciseness. No structure or front-loading of key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 14 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what data is returned, how pagination works, or how storage rooms differ from other property types.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds zero meaning to the 14 parameters. Schema descriptions are mostly empty ('Example value: '), so the tool must compensate but fails to explain any parameter's role or acceptable values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: 'List Storage Rooms' restates the tool's name and function, but adds no differentiation from sibling tools like 'list_rooms' or 'list_home_properties'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get more details about a property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | Yes | The language of the ad. Pick between: en, es, it, pt, ca, de, fr, nl, nb | |
| location | Yes | One of the following values: es|pt|it | |
| propertyId | Yes | Property Id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but provides no details on authentication, error handling, rate limits, or what happens when a property is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly minimal for a tool with three parameters. It lacks structure and fails to provide sufficient information for effective agent usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits details about return format, error scenarios, and how this tool fits with siblings, reducing contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get more details about a property', which clearly identifies a read operation on a property resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_microsite_profile or list_home_properties, leaving ambiguity about what 'details' specifically includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not indicate any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v2.0.3get_microsite_locationsget_microsite_profileget_sublocationsget_suggestionslist_buildingslist_commercial_propertieslist_garageslist_home_propertieslist_landslist_new_homeslist_officeslist_roomslist_storage_roomsproperty_detailsEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: microsite info, location suggestions, sublocations, and various property type listings (homes, new homes, garages, offices, etc.). No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_microsite_locations, list_buildings, property_details). No variations or mixed conventions.
14 tools is appropriate for a real estate listing server, covering property types, locations, and details without being excessive or sparse.
The tool set covers core browsing and search for various property types, but lacks cross-type search or advanced filtering beyond individual lists. Minor gap for a read-only API.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
First-party Spanish, Portuguese and Italian property listings with notarial-verified prices.
AI-native real estate discovery with structured property search and market intelligence.
French real estate listings, market data and property alerts (Stream Estate API v2).
Redfin listings, sale-comps, and neighborhood market data via natural-language queries.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/idealista7'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
