Skip to main content
Glama

CivicDataForge Government Evidence

by dev.pages.civicdataforge

Texas Childcare Licensing

civicdataforge--texas-childcare-licensing

Use for Texas-only childcare operation, inspection, and deficiency evidence. For comparable research spanning multiple supported states, use multistate-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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countyNoFilter to one Texas county (e.g. HARRIS, DALLAS, TRAVIS). Leave empty for statewide.
maxRecordsNoCap total records (leave empty for the full registry, ~100k).
operationTypeNoe.g. 'Licensed Center', 'Licensed Child-Care Home', 'Listed Family Home'. Leave empty for all.
minHighDeficienciesNoOnly return operations with at least this many high-severity deficiencies (compliance screening).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: it starts a bound Apify Actor, consumes Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, returns at most 1,000 rows, and does not modify government records. This aligns with openWorldHint and idempotentHint=false and adds concrete side-effect and timeout context.

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 two sentences with every clause earning its place: scope, sibling alternative, runtime behavior, timeout, row limit, and non-mutation. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the caller gets ('at most 1,000 source-linked rows') and what the caller should know before invoking ('may consume Apify usage,' 'waits up to 60 seconds'). It is complete for selection and 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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds some useful context like 'source-linked rows' and 'without modifying government records,' but it does not substantially enrich the meaning of the individual parameters beyond their existing schema descriptions.

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 names a precise scope ('Texas-only childcare operation, inspection, and deficiency evidence'), making the resource and purpose explicit. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 ('Texas-only') and names the alternative for multi-state research ('use multistate-childcare-licensing instead'). This is clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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 toolsInspect
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