CivicDataForge Government Evidence

Free STR permit check (no key)

civicdataforge_free_permit_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free, no key needed. Checks whether each address appears on its city's own published short-term rental permit list, for the 18 cities whose lists are searchable live (Albuquerque, Arlington TX, Asheville, Aspen, Bend, Coconino County, Denver, Houston, Huntington Beach, Louisville, Marin County, Nashville, New Orleans, Norfolk, Orlando, Sacramento, San Bernardino County, Seattle). Returns has_permit, expired, no_permit_found or close_match with the city's status, expiry date, the address as the city lists it, and a link to the city record. Other covered places return audit_only with the Permit Audit ($4.99) link. Up to 25 lines a call, 200 an hour.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "civicdataforge_free_permit_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	For one address: the city.
`lines`	No	Addresses to check. Each is {city, address} or one string like "123 Main St, Denver".
`address`	No	For one address: the street address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the four result classifications (has_permit, expired, no_permit_found, close_match), the audit_only degraded mode, no key requirement, and explicit quotas of 25 lines per call and 200 per hour.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the free/no-key claim and the core action, then the city list and return semantics. The 18-city enumeration is long but functional, since it defines the coverage boundary; no sentence is pure filler, though the list could have been condensed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (status, expiry date, city-listed address, record link) and the possible result values. Coverage limits, quotas and fallback behavior are all disclosed, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling.

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 city/lines/address parameters are already documented, including the {city, address} vs single-string input shapes and maxItems 25. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond echoing the 25-line cap, which is the correct baseline when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Checks whether each address appears on its city's own published short-term rental permit list.' It names the scope (18 live-searchable cities, enumerated) and the free/no-key positioning, which implicitly separates it from the paid Permit Audit referenced in the fallback path.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clear context for when it applies (only those 18 cities) and what happens otherwise (audit_only plus a $4.99 Permit Audit link), so the agent knows the boundary of usefulness. It stops short of naming a sibling tool to use instead for out-of-coverage places, leaving the fallback as a paid link rather than an alternative tool.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?