PermitReporter — US Building Permit Intelligence

Create an authorized PermitReporter email watch

create_permit_watch

Idempotent

Create a pending email watch only after the user reviews the exact email, search query and optional county, explicitly authorizes this request and confirmation email, and accepts https://permitreporter.com/terms and https://permitreporter.com/privacy. This additive action stores the email and search for alerts; it does not file a permit or prove coverage. The address must confirm before alerts begin. Reuse submission_id for safe retries.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	The user's reviewed email address. It is stored for confirmation and alerts, never returned.
`query`	Yes	The exact address, project, subdivision, business term or county-wide phrase the user approved.
`county`	No	Optional county restriction. Bare for Georgia ('Cobb'), state-qualified elsewhere ('Los Angeles, CA').
`submission_id`	Yes	Generate once for this watch; reuse it when retrying the same exact request.
`user_authorized`	Yes	True only after the user reviews the exact email, query and county and explicitly asks PermitReporter to create this watch and send its confirmation email.
`terms_and_privacy_accepted`	Yes	True only after the user accepts https://permitreporter.com/terms and https://permitreporter.com/privacy.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`watch`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`replayed`	Yes
`next_step`	Yes
`reference`	Yes
`submission_meaning`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the watch is pending, additive, not a filing or proof of coverage, and requires email confirmation before alerts begin. It also reinforces safe retry behavior via submission_id. This is substantive beyond the structured annotations.

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 three sentences and front-loads the critical precondition. Every sentence adds value, though the first sentence is dense and partly duplicates parameter details and URLs already present in the schema descriptions. Still, it is appropriately sized for a sensitive authorization-gated create action.

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 a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations for idempotency and destructiveness, the description covers all important contextual gaps: authorization requirements, pending state, confirmation-before-alerts, and retry semantics. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the parameter descriptions already explain email, query, county format, submission_id reuse, and authorization flags. The description mostly restates these concepts rather than adding new parameter-level meaning. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific action ('Create a pending email watch') and clearly differentiates it from a permit filing or coverage proof: 'does not file a permit or prove coverage.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from the read/search siblings.

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 preconditions: 'only after the user reviews the exact email, search query and optional county, explicitly authorizes this request and confirmation email, and accepts...terms.' It also notes the address must confirm before alerts begin. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the negative constraint and preconditions make usage context clear.

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

All PermitReporter — US Building Permit Intelligence tools Inspect

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The tools have overlapping purposes: `search` and `search_permits` both search for permits, differing only in that `search` also covers guidance. Similarly, `fetch` and `get_permit_record` both retrieve records, with unclear boundary between them. This will cause agent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a clear `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `create_permit_watch`, `get_county_coverage`), but `fetch` and `search` are generic and deviate from that pattern, creating a mixed convention. Still, the names are readable and mostly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

With 8 tools, the count is well within the typical 3-15 range and matches the server's scope of permit search, retrieval, and coverage. It feels slightly heavy due to redundant tools, but not excessive.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers search, retrieval, coverage, and leads, but lacks any management of permit watches (no list, update, or delete). This is a notable gap since `create_permit_watch` exists, leaving an incomplete lifecycle.

Resources

Need Help?