CivicDataForge Government Evidence

Municipal Property Violations

civicdataforge--property-violations

Use for municipal building, property, and code-violation research in supported jurisdictions. Do not use for STR licensing or restaurant health inspections; choose the corresponding permit or inspection tool. 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	Default
`cities`	No	Which city building code-enforcement / property-violation registries to pull.
`status`	No	Return all violations, or only currently OPEN/active ones (the distress signal buyers usually want).	all
`maxRecordsPerCity`	No	Cap records per city, newest first (leave empty to pull the full registry).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description explains why: it starts a bound Apify Actor with the caller's token, may consume Apify usage, and waits up to 60 seconds. It adds a meaningful non-modification guarantee without contradicting the hints.

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?

Three sentences: usage, exclusion, and behavior. Dense but efficient, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Covers side effects, limits, timeout, and non-destructiveness, but with no output schema the return shape is only sketched as 'at most 1,000 source-linked rows.' An agent still has to infer the fields returned; a 4 is appropriate.

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?

All three parameters already have detailed schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description need not restate them. It adds context like 'source-linked rows' and the 1,000-row cap, but no per-parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 use ('municipal building, property, and code-violation research'), names the domain, and explicitly separates the tool from STR licensing and restaurant-inspection siblings. This is enough for an agent to know what resource it acts on, even though the verb is 'use for... research' rather than 'search'.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use conditions and an explicit do-not-use rule naming the alternatives (permit and inspection tools). It also scopes to 'supported jurisdictions,' which aligns with the cities parameter.

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?