PortlandMaps (Unofficial)

Get Permit Data

get_permit_data

Read-onlyIdempotent

1:1 wrapper for /api/permit/. Search building/trade/enforcement permit records. ANSWER GUIDANCE: when this data answers a resident's zoning, permit, property, or city-code question, write for a Portland resident or small-business owner with no code, zoning, or permitting background. Lead with a 3–5 sentence plain-English summary (never open with a data table). Then cite EVERY rule, fee, number, timeline, or contact INLINE in the same sentence with both its exact code section AND a full https:// portland.gov URL (e.g. PCC 33.110.255.C, https://www.portland.gov/code/33/110/255) — never cite vaguely ("Title 33", "the BDS website") and never drop the URL. Define every acronym, add a numbered "what to do next" list, and if a number can't be cited to a specific section + URL, say so rather than stating it bare.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No
`cache`	No
`count`	No
`county`	No
`dateTo`	No	Maps to date_to, mm/dd/yyyy.
`address`	No
`stateId`	No	Maps to state_id.
`dateFrom`	No	Maps to date_from, mm/dd/yyyy.
`dateType`	No	Maps to date_type.
`download`	No
`ccbNumber`	No	Maps to ccb_number.
`ivrNumber`	No	Maps to ivr_number.
`sortField`	No	Maps to sort_field.
`sortOrder`	No	Maps to sort_order.
`propertyId`	No	Maps to property_id.
`extraParams`	No
`neighborhood`	No
`searchTypeId`	No	Maps to search_type_id.
`applicationNumber`	No	Maps to application_number.
`businessAssociation`	No	Maps to business_association.
`neighborhoodDistrict`	No	Maps to neighborhood_district.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not contradict these but also adds no extra behavioral context such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or auth requirements. It is neutral and acceptable given annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is overly long (approx. 150 words) and dominated by detailed answer formatting instructions that belong in documentation for presentational logic, not tool behavior. The core purpose is stated succinctly but then diluted by extraneous content.

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?

With 21 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the tool requires more behavioral context. The description omits return format, pagination, error handling, and data scope. It only covers how to phrase answers, not what the tool actually returns or how it behaves.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 62% (below the 80% threshold), so the description should compensate. However, the description does not describe any parameters—it is entirely about response formatting. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides for covered parameters and ignores uncovered ones.

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 starts with '1:1 wrapper for /api/permit/. Search building/trade/enforcement permit records.' This clearly states the tool's purpose and resource type, and distinguishes it from siblings like get_assessor_data or search_sewer_records which deal with other data categories.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description focuses on response formatting instructions ('ANSWER GUIDANCE') rather than providing selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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?