permit_timelineDays from permit application to issue, and from issue to final inspection, from the dates on city permits, with the number of permits and the dates they cover. Final-inspection times count finished jobs only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City id from list_coverage, e.g. los-angeles, new-york, austin | |
| kind_of_work | Yes | Kind of work, e.g. roofing, solar, adu, remodel |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / city / enumPrevious value: -[
- "los-angeles",
- "san-francisco",
- "seattle",
- "new-york",
- "austin",
- "philadelphia",
- "chicago",
- "nashville",
- "san-jose",
- "sacramento",
- "boulder",
- "las-vegas",
- "new-orleans",
- "baton-rouge",
- "raleigh",
- "buffalo",
- "cleveland",
- "somerville",
- "cambridge",
- "minneapolis",
- "bellevue",
- "cary",
- "elk-grove",
- "anaheim",
- "arlington-va",
- "greensboro",
- "naperville",
- "everett",
- "san-diego",
- "chattanooga",
- "orlando",
- "tacoma",
- "riverside",
- "pittsburgh",
- "miami-dade",
- "marin-county",
- "mesa",
- "rockford",
- "san-antonio",
- "st-louis"
-]New value: +[
+ "los-angeles",
+ "san-francisco",
+ "seattle",
+ "new-york",
+ "austin",
+ "philadelphia",
+ "chicago",
+ "nashville",
+ "san-jose",
+ "sacramento",
+ "boulder",
+ "las-vegas",
+ "new-orleans",
+ "baton-rouge",
+ "raleigh",
+ "buffalo",
+ "cleveland",
+ "somerville",
+ "cambridge",
+ "minneapolis",
+ "bellevue",
+ "cary",
+ "elk-grove",
+ "anaheim",
+ "arlington-va",
+ "greensboro",
+ "naperville",
+ "everett",
+ "san-diego",
+ "chattanooga",
+ "orlando",
+ "tacoma",
+ "riverside",
+ "pittsburgh",
+ "miami-dade",
+ "marin-county",
+ "mesa",
+ "rockford",
+ "san-antonio",
+ "dekalb-county",
+ "denton",
+ "harris-county",
+ "st-louis",
+ "henrico-county"
+]Input schema / properties / city / enumPrevious value: -[
- "los-angeles",
- "san-francisco",
- "seattle",
- "new-york",
- "austin",
- "philadelphia",
- "chicago",
- "nashville",
- "sacramento",
- "boulder",
- "las-vegas",
- "new-orleans",
- "baton-rouge",
- "raleigh",
- "buffalo",
- "cleveland",
- "somerville",
- "cambridge",
- "minneapolis",
- "bellevue",
- "cary",
- "elk-grove",
- "anaheim",
- "arlington-va",
- "greensboro",
- "naperville",
- "everett",
- "chattanooga",
- "orlando",
- "tacoma",
- "riverside",
- "pittsburgh",
- "miami-dade",
- "marin-county",
- "mesa",
- "rockford",
- "san-antonio"
-]New value: +[
+ "los-angeles",
+ "san-francisco",
+ "seattle",
+ "new-york",
+ "austin",
+ "philadelphia",
+ "chicago",
+ "nashville",
+ "san-jose",
+ "sacramento",
+ "boulder",
+ "las-vegas",
+ "new-orleans",
+ "baton-rouge",
+ "raleigh",
+ "buffalo",
+ "cleveland",
+ "somerville",
+ "cambridge",
+ "minneapolis",
+ "bellevue",
+ "cary",
+ "elk-grove",
+ "anaheim",
+ "arlington-va",
+ "greensboro",
+ "naperville",
+ "everett",
+ "san-diego",
+ "chattanooga",
+ "orlando",
+ "tacoma",
+ "riverside",
+ "pittsburgh",
+ "miami-dade",
+ "marin-county",
+ "mesa",
+ "rockford",
+ "san-antonio",
+ "st-louis"
+]Input schema / properties / city / enumPrevious value: -[
- "los-angeles",
- "san-francisco",
- "seattle",
- "new-york",
- "austin",
- "philadelphia",
- "chicago",
- "nashville",
- "sacramento",
- "boulder",
- "las-vegas",
- "new-orleans",
- "baton-rouge",
- "raleigh",
- "buffalo",
- "cleveland",
- "somerville",
- "cambridge",
- "minneapolis",
- "bellevue",
- "cary",
- "elk-grove",
- "anaheim",
- "arlington-va",
- "greensboro",
- "naperville",
- "everett",
- "chattanooga",
- "orlando",
- "tacoma",
- "riverside",
- "pittsburgh",
- "miami-dade",
- "marin-county",
- "mesa",
- "rockford"
-]New value: +[
+ "los-angeles",
+ "san-francisco",
+ "seattle",
+ "new-york",
+ "austin",
+ "philadelphia",
+ "chicago",
+ "nashville",
+ "sacramento",
+ "boulder",
+ "las-vegas",
+ "new-orleans",
+ "baton-rouge",
+ "raleigh",
+ "buffalo",
+ "cleveland",
+ "somerville",
+ "cambridge",
+ "minneapolis",
+ "bellevue",
+ "cary",
+ "elk-grove",
+ "anaheim",
+ "arlington-va",
+ "greensboro",
+ "naperville",
+ "everett",
+ "chattanooga",
+ "orlando",
+ "tacoma",
+ "riverside",
+ "pittsburgh",
+ "miami-dade",
+ "marin-county",
+ "mesa",
+ "rockford",
+ "san-antonio"
+]Input schema / properties / city / enumPrevious value: -[
- "los-angeles",
- "san-francisco",
- "seattle",
- "new-york",
- "austin",
- "philadelphia",
- "chicago",
- "nashville",
- "sacramento",
- "boulder",
- "las-vegas",
- "new-orleans",
- "baton-rouge",
- "raleigh",
- "buffalo",
- "cleveland",
- "somerville",
- "cambridge",
- "minneapolis",
- "bellevue",
- "cary",
- "elk-grove",
- "anaheim",
- "arlington-va",
- "greensboro",
- "naperville",
- "everett",
- "chattanooga",
- "orlando",
- "tacoma",
- "riverside",
- "pittsburgh",
- "miami-dade",
- "marin-county",
- "mesa",
- "rockford",
- "san-antonio"
-]New value: +[
+ "los-angeles",
+ "san-francisco",
+ "seattle",
+ "new-york",
+ "austin",
+ "philadelphia",
+ "chicago",
+ "nashville",
+ "sacramento",
+ "boulder",
+ "las-vegas",
+ "new-orleans",
+ "baton-rouge",
+ "raleigh",
+ "buffalo",
+ "cleveland",
+ "somerville",
+ "cambridge",
+ "minneapolis",
+ "bellevue",
+ "cary",
+ "elk-grove",
+ "anaheim",
+ "arlington-va",
+ "greensboro",
+ "naperville",
+ "everett",
+ "chattanooga",
+ "orlando",
+ "tacoma",
+ "riverside",
+ "pittsburgh",
+ "miami-dade",
+ "marin-county",
+ "mesa",
+ "rockford"
+]Input schema / properties / city / enumPrevious value: -[
- "los-angeles",
- "san-francisco",
- "seattle",
- "new-york",
- "austin",
- "philadelphia",
- "chicago",
- "nashville",
- "sacramento",
- "boulder",
- "las-vegas",
- "new-orleans",
- "baton-rouge",
- "raleigh",
- "buffalo",
- "cleveland",
- "somerville",
- "cambridge",
- "minneapolis",
- "bellevue",
- "cary",
- "elk-grove",
- "anaheim",
- "arlington-va",
- "greensboro",
- "naperville",
- "everett",
- "chattanooga",
- "orlando",
- "tacoma",
- "riverside",
- "pittsburgh",
- "miami-dade",
- "marin-county",
- "mesa",
- "rockford"
-]New value: +[
+ "los-angeles",
+ "san-francisco",
+ "seattle",
+ "new-york",
+ "austin",
+ "philadelphia",
+ "chicago",
+ "nashville",
+ "sacramento",
+ "boulder",
+ "las-vegas",
+ "new-orleans",
+ "baton-rouge",
+ "raleigh",
+ "buffalo",
+ "cleveland",
+ "somerville",
+ "cambridge",
+ "minneapolis",
+ "bellevue",
+ "cary",
+ "elk-grove",
+ "anaheim",
+ "arlington-va",
+ "greensboro",
+ "naperville",
+ "everett",
+ "chattanooga",
+ "orlando",
+ "tacoma",
+ "riverside",
+ "pittsburgh",
+ "miami-dade",
+ "marin-county",
+ "mesa",
+ "rockford",
+ "san-antonio"
+]Input schema / properties / city / enumPrevious value: -[
- "los-angeles",
- "san-francisco",
- "seattle",
- "new-york",
- "austin",
- "philadelphia",
- "chicago",
- "nashville",
- "sacramento",
- "boulder",
- "las-vegas",
- "new-orleans",
- "baton-rouge",
- "raleigh",
- "buffalo",
- "cleveland",
- "somerville",
- "cambridge",
- "minneapolis",
- "bellevue",
- "cary",
- "elk-grove",
- "anaheim",
- "arlington-va",
- "greensboro",
- "naperville",
- "everett",
- "chattanooga",
- "orlando",
- "tacoma",
- "riverside",
- "pittsburgh",
- "miami-dade"
-]New value: +[
+ "los-angeles",
+ "san-francisco",
+ "seattle",
+ "new-york",
+ "austin",
+ "philadelphia",
+ "chicago",
+ "nashville",
+ "sacramento",
+ "boulder",
+ "las-vegas",
+ "new-orleans",
+ "baton-rouge",
+ "raleigh",
+ "buffalo",
+ "cleveland",
+ "somerville",
+ "cambridge",
+ "minneapolis",
+ "bellevue",
+ "cary",
+ "elk-grove",
+ "anaheim",
+ "arlington-va",
+ "greensboro",
+ "naperville",
+ "everett",
+ "chattanooga",
+ "orlando",
+ "tacoma",
+ "riverside",
+ "pittsburgh",
+ "miami-dade",
+ "marin-county",
+ "mesa",
+ "rockford"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine methodological context beyond that: results are derived from permit dates, include permit counts and the date range covered, and final-inspection timings only count completed jobs — a real sampling caveat an agent would not otherwise know.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the primary output (the two durations) is front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly convoluted, but every clause earns its place by describing either the metric or its coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must describe the return payload, and it does: two duration figures plus permit counts and the dates covered. Combined with 100% schema coverage for the two required params and annotations carrying the safety profile, an agent has what it needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters enumerated and documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description adds nothing about parameter format or constraints, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the two computed durations (application→issue, issue→final inspection) and the source (dates on city permits), which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like project_cost or solar_estimate. It is framed as a metric description rather than a verb+resource action, but the resource is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only routing hint ('City id from list_coverage') lives in the schema parameter description, not the tool description, so an agent gets no help choosing between this and the cost/estimate siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.