CivicDataForge Government Evidence

Multi-State Childcare Licensing

civicdataforge--multistate-childcare-licensing

Use for cross-state childcare licensing, inspection, and deficiency research across supported states. For Texas-only operation, inspection, or deficiency filters, use texas-childcare-licensing instead. Starts the bound Apify Actor with the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, and returns at most 1,000 source-linked rows without modifying government records.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`county`	No	Filter to one county (e.g. 'Sussex', 'Oneida', 'Boulder'). Applied server-side where the state feed carries a county column; CT publishes no county so a county filter returns no CT rows. Leave empty for statewide.
`states`	No	Which states to pull. Available: NY (16.8k facilities), NJ (4.2k), CO (4.5k), CT (16.2k + inspections), DE (1.2k + inspections & deficiencies). Leave empty for all five.
`licenseStatus`	No	Case-insensitive substring match on the facility's license status (e.g. 'ACTIVE', 'License', 'Licensed'). Leave empty for all statuses.
`minDeficiencies`	No	Only return facilities with at least this many cited deficiencies (compliance screening). Deficiency counts are published only by Delaware; other states have none, so this filter excludes them.
`maxInspectionRows`	No	Cap the inspection/deficiency rows fetched per state before building the per-facility compliance lookup (leave empty to read the full feed; CT ships ~97k inspection rows).
`includeInspections`	No	When on, fetch each state's inspection/deficiency feed and merge per-facility inspection_count and (DE) deficiency_count + top cited regulations. Turn off for a faster, licensing-only pull. Only affects CT and DE.
`maxRecordsPerState`	No	Cap the number of facility records pulled from each state (leave empty for the full registry).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations only saying readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description adds important context: it 'Starts the bound Apify Actor with the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, and returns at most 1,000 source-linked rows without modifying government records.' This clearly discloses side effects, timeouts, limits, and non-destructive behavior beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences that each carry weight: purpose and distinction, sibling routing, and behavioral constraints. It is front-loaded with the most important usage signal and avoids fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, sibling differentiation, actor execution, side effects, timeout, row limit, and non-modification of records. With 7 parameters but no output schema, it could have described the response format in more detail, but the supplied context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The overall description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource scope: 'Use for cross-state childcare licensing, inspection, and deficiency research across supported states.' It also names the sibling it is not, texas-childcare-licensing, which lets an agent distinguish these two tools without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('cross-state') and names the alternative with the selecting condition: 'For Texas-only operation, inspection, or deficiency filters, use texas-childcare-licensing instead.' This is direct routing guidance with no inference required.

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

All CivicDataForge Government Evidence 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most domain tools are well-scoped with explicit cross-references (e.g., FL DBPR vs. STR registry, Texas vs. multistate childcare). However, the evidence-gateway overlaps with EPA, U.S. property, and other specialized tools by describing similar intake categories, creating ambiguity about when to use the router versus the domain-specific tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The specialized tools consistently use the civicdataforge-- prefix with descriptive noun phrases, while the generic actor tools use imperative verb_noun style. The naming is readable and predictable within each subgroup, but the mixed conventions and the awkward doubled prefix in civicdataforge--civicdataforge-evidence-gateway prevent full consistency.

Tool Count4/5

Fourteen tools is reasonable for a broad government-evidence server covering many data domains plus an async run lifecycle. The count is not excessive, though the gateway and several overlapping domain-specific tools add some redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of evidence domains and provides complete async workflow coverage: launch queries, check run status, fetch dataset items, read KVS records, and abort runs. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit way to enumerate supported jurisdictions or sources, and the gateway's broad categories are underspecified.

Resources

Need Help?