PortlandMaps (Unofficial)

Get PortlandMaps Detail

get_portlandmaps_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

1:1 wrapper for /api/detail/. Fetch a detail record by detail_type, detail_id, and sections. 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	Default
`fileId`	No	Maps to file_id.
`detailId`	Yes	Maps to detail_id.
`fileType`	No	Maps to file_type.
`geometry`	No
`sections`	No	Use 'list' for available sections, or '*' for all sections.	*
`cacheClear`	No	Maps to cache_clear.
`detailType`	Yes	Maps to detail_type.
`propertyId`	No	Maps to property_id.
`extraParams`	No

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint; description adds no additional behavioral context about auth needs, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

Description is lengthy with extensive answer guidance that could be separated; not concise for the tool's core purpose.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, the description should explain more about parameters like fileId, fileType, geometry, etc., and return value structure; answer guidance does not compensate.

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 coverage is 78%, so baseline is 3; description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond repeating parameter names (detail_type, detail_id, sections).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it fetches a detail record by detail_type, detail_id, and sections, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_assessor_data or 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 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 answer guidance is about formatting output, not tool selection.

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?