CivicDataForge Government Evidence

US STR Permit Registry

civicdataforge--str-permit-registry

Use for address, permit-ID, or jurisdiction research across 31 supported US short-term-rental permit sources. For Florida statewide DBPR lodging licenses, use fl-dbpr-vacation-rentals instead. Address mode preserves explicit evidence decisions, scope, and receipts. 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 of the 29 covered cities to pull. Published fields vary by city — see the README coverage table.
`status`	No	Return all permits, or only currently-active licenses.	all
`snapshot`	No	Persist a query-scoped baseline and compare it with the prior complete run. Requires maxRecordsPerCity to be cleared; capped results are rejected so they cannot create false disappearance alerts.
`maxRecordsPerCity`	No	Cap records per city (leave empty for the full registry).
`resolveJurisdiction`	No	Use coordinates and Census boundaries to distinguish an incorporated city from an unincorporated county area. Disable for a faster raw-source pull.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that invoking the tool starts an Apify Actor using the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, returns at most 1,000 rows, and does not modify government records. This covers side effects, timeout, output limits, and safety, aligning with the destructiveHint=false annotation without contradicting readOnlyHint=false.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then quickly covers the key alternative, mode behavior, and operational constraints. Every sentence contributes either routing, side-effect, or limit information, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not specify the structure of returned rows beyond 'source-linked,' but it does state the limit of 1,000 and that no government records are modified. The mention of 'Address mode' is slightly ambiguous since no such parameter exists, but the schema and descriptions otherwise make invocation requirements clear.

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 the structured schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The tool description adds no per-parameter detail beyond referencing 'Address mode' generically, which is not a named parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Use for address, permit-ID, or jurisdiction research across 31 supported US short-term-rental permit sources.' It clearly differentiates itself from the Florida-specific sibling by naming fl-dbpr-vacation-rentals as the alternative.

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?

The description explicitly instructs when to use this tool and when not to: 'For Florida statewide DBPR lodging licenses, use fl-dbpr-vacation-rentals instead.' It also frames the general intended use ('address, permit-ID, or jurisdiction research'), giving clear context for routing.

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?