All building permits on record at a street address in a supported city: what is being built, remodeled or demolished there, when, and reported cost. From city open data, refreshed several times a day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City slug, e.g. los-angeles, new-york, chicago | |
| address | Yes | Street address with house number, e.g. '867 N Iliff St'. New York: include the borough, e.g. '180 West Street, Brooklyn'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful context an agent could not get elsewhere: the data provenance (city open data) and refresh cadence (several times a day), plus the fields returned. It does not say whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no permits exist, or whether any city/address combinations are unsupported beyond 'supported city'.
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, front-loaded with the operation and scope, with the provenance/freshness note compressed into a single short trailing sentence. No filler or repetition.
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 exists, so the description compensates by describing the returned content (project type, timing, reported cost). It leaves minor gaps around empty results and result volume/pagination, but covers what an agent needs to call it and interpret the payload.
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% and both parameters carry format examples (city slug, address with house number, borough for New York), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the 'supported city' framing, which slightly reinforces the city constraint but nothing the schema lacks.
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?
States a specific verb-resource pair (all building permits at a street address) with scope qualifiers (supported city) and enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly separates itself from recent_permits (time-scoped) and get_permit (single record), though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the scope phrase 'at a street address in a supported city'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to an alternative like recent_permits or get_permit. An agent can infer the lookup-by-address intent but must guess at the routing rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.