PortlandMaps (Unofficial)

Get Assessor Data

get_assessor_data

Read-onlyIdempotent

1:1 wrapper for /api/assessor/. Search assessor records by address, property IDs, geometry, or assessor filters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No
`page`	No
`cache`	No
`count`	No
`county`	No
`address`	No
`primary`	No
`stateId`	No	Maps to state_id.
`zipCode`	No	Maps to zip_code.
`download`	No
`geometry`	No
`soldAfter`	No	Maps to sold_after, mm/dd/yyyy.
`sortField`	No	Maps to sort_field.
`sortOrder`	No	Maps to sort_order.
`builtAfter`	No	Maps to built_after.
`propertyId`	No	Maps to property_id.
`soldBefore`	No	Maps to sold_before, mm/dd/yyyy.
`sqftLarger`	No	Maps to sqft_larger.
`builtBefore`	No	Maps to built_before.
`extraParams`	No
`sqftSmaller`	No	Maps to sqft_smaller.
`marketLarger`	No	Maps to market_larger.
`marketSmaller`	No	Maps to market_smaller.
`parentStateId`	No	Maps to parent_state_id.
`altAccountNumber`	No	Maps to alt_account_number.
`legalDescription`	No	Maps to legal_description.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only '1:1 wrapper' which is minimal; no additional context on rate limits, pagination, or caching behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no irrelevant information. Every word contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 26 parameters, no output schema, and complex types (geometry, extraParams), the description is too short. It lacks details on parameter combinations, response format, or usage constraints.

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 62%, and the description lists search methods but provides no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Maps to' descriptions, which are somewhat helpful but not expansive.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'assessor records', and specifies search criteria (address, property IDs, geometry, or filters), distinguishing it from siblings like get_permit_data.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for assessor data searches but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All PortlandMaps (Unofficial) 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

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct data types (assessor, permits, land use, sewer, geometry, etc.), but get_portlandmaps_detail overlaps conceptually with the specific search tools as a generic detail fetcher. This could cause confusion about which tool to use for a particular record.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern. However, two tools (get_portlandmaps_detail, suggest_portlandmaps_address) redundantly include the server name, breaking the otherwise consistent naming scheme.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools cover a broad range of Portland city data and GIS operations. The count is well-scoped for the domain—neither too sparse nor excessive.

Completeness4/5

The server covers major data categories like assessor, permits, land use, sewer, geometry, and spatial queries. Potential gaps like explicit zoning or code lookups might exist, but the set is largely comprehensive for typical PortlandMaps queries.

Resources

Need Help?