Evaluate 1-50 normalized projects in one call. Each item exposes jurisdiction, project.family/action, optional property/address/context and client_ref. Malformed items remain isolated as per-item failures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that malformed items remain isolated as per-item failures, which is important for a batch API. However, it does not state whether evaluation is read-only, how partial success is represented, or other failure/rate-limit behaviors.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the batch capacity and core purpose, then compactly states the per-item shape and the failure-isolation behavior. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a batch tool, the description covers capacity, per-item input structure, and malformed-item handling, and an output schema exists to detail return values. It is slightly incomplete because it never points the agent to the single-project sibling or clarifies when batch is the wrong choice.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by highlighting the meaningful item fields: jurisdiction, project.family/action, optional property/address/context, and client_ref. This gives an agent a concrete starting point for constructing items, while the schema supplies detailed field semantics.
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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Evaluate 1-50 normalized projects in one call.' It clearly conveys this is a batch evaluation tool and summarizes the per-item inputs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling check_project_requirements, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The '1-50 ... in one call' phrasing implies this tool is for multi-project evaluations, and the sibling name suggests check_project_requirements is the single-item alternative. However, the description never explicitly states when to use the batch tool versus the singular sibling or when the batch variant is inappropriate.
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.
The two requirement-check tools are distinct by cardinality: one handles a single project and the other handles a batch of 1-50. projectpermit_info is clearly a capability-discovery tool and not a permit determination, so the boundaries between tools are clear.
check_project_requirements and check_project_requirements_batch follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, while projectpermit_info uses a noun_info style. This is a minor deviation but the overall naming remains predictable and readable.
Three tools is well-scoped for this server: one info/discovery tool, one single-check tool, and one batch-check tool. Each tool has a distinct purpose and earns its place without unnecessary overlap.
The server covers the full intended workflow: discover supported jurisdictions and families, check a single project, and check up to 50 projects in batch. No obvious missing operations exist for pre-quoting and scheduling permit determination.