PortlandMaps (Unofficial)

Search Land Use Cases

search_landuse_cases

Read-onlyIdempotent

1:1 wrapper for /api/landuse/. Search land use review cases, including Historic Resource Review and Tree Review. 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
`dateTo`	No	Maps to date_to, mm/dd/yyyy.
`dateFrom`	No	Maps to date_from, mm/dd/yyyy.
`download`	No
`ivrNumber`	No	Maps to ivr_number.
`sortField`	No	Maps to sort_field.
`sortOrder`	No	Maps to sort_order.
`extraParams`	No
`neighborhood`	No
`planDistrict`	No	Maps to plan_district.
`searchTypeId`	No	Maps to search_type_id.
`milestoneStatus`	No	Maps to milestone_status.
`historicDistrict`	No	Maps to historic_district.
`applicationNumber`	No	Maps to application_number.
`businessAssociation`	No	Maps to business_association.
`conservationDistrict`	No	Maps to conservation_district.
`neighborhoodDistrict`	No	Maps to neighborhood_district.

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the behavioral burden is partially covered. The description adds the fact that it wraps a specific API, but does not disclose any additional traits such as rate limits or data freshness.

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 dominated by extensive answer guidance intended for the AI agent, which is not about the tool itself. This is verbose and poorly structured for the tool definition purpose. The core functional description is only the first sentence.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (19 params, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return format, pagination behavior, default sorting, and how to effectively invoke the tool. The answer guidance adds irrelevant context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 19 parameters and only 68% schema coverage, the description provides no parameter details. It does not explain any parameter's purpose, format, or how parameters map to the API, failing to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches land use review cases, including Historic Resource Review and Tree Review, and identifies it as a 1:1 wrapper for the /api/landuse/ API. However, the extensive answer guidance is irrelevant to purpose clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_permit_data or get_assessor_data. The answer guidance is about output formatting, 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?