get_permit_recordRetrieve one privacy-minimized collected building-permit record by PermitReporter record ID, including its canonical citation, official source link and collection timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value beyond them by disclosing that records are 'privacy-minimized' and include canonical citation, official source link, and collection timestamp. This provides useful context about the nature and contents of the returned record without needing to restate annotation facts.
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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and object, then appends the included return fields. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy with the title or schema.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It specifies the retrieval method, the identifier semantics, and the key returned content. It could mention not-found behavior or response wrapping, but those are minor gaps given the simple, safe operation.
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 0% description coverage, but the schema itself already defines record_id as an integer with a minimum of 1 and marks it required. The description adds meaning by explaining that record_id is a PermitReporter record ID used to retrieve a specific record, which is important context beyond the bare schema. With one simple parameter, this is sufficient.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), names the exact resource ('one privacy-minimized collected building-permit record'), and identifies the lookup key ('by PermitReporter record ID'). It also lists the included fields, clearly distinguishing this from sibling search and snapshot tools.
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 clearly indicates this is for retrieving a single record by a known ID, which implies it should be used when the agent already has a record_id rather than needing to search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single-record ID-based framing provides adequate usage context.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.