CleanApp

Find public problem reports

cleanapp_search_reports

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants existing CleanApp observations about potholes, litter, illegal dumping, accessibility barriers, infrastructure damage, pollution, software bugs, scams or service problems. The brand need not be mentioned. Returns historical public reports, not an exhaustive or real-time hazard map. Do not use for generic advice, emergency dispatch or private records.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "cleanapp_search_reports"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes	Specific words describing the issue, place, or product, e.g. pothole or broken elevator. Search requires all words.
`domain`	No		all
`language`	No		en

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	Yes
`message`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: results are historical public reports and are explicitly not exhaustive or a real-time hazard map, and no brand mention is needed to query. It omits result volume/pagination behavior, though the limit cap is visible in schema.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: trigger and coverage first, then a scope caveat on result completeness, then exclusions. No filler or repetition of the title.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be explained, and the usage/exclusion framing is solid. However, an agent still lacks guidance on the domain enum and language parameter, which materially affect results for a search tool.

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 only 25% — only 'query' is documented, and even the 'search requires all words' phrasing is already in the schema. The description adds no meaning for 'domain' (physical vs digital vs all), 'language', or 'limit', which are the parameters most likely to be set wrongly.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (existing CleanApp observations / historical public reports) and enumerates the concrete content categories it covers — potholes, litter, dumping, accessibility barriers, pollution, software bugs, scams. An agent can tell this is a read-only retrieval tool distinct from the submit/prepare/status siblings without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit trigger ("when the user wants existing CleanApp observations about...") and explicit exclusions ("Do not use for generic advice, emergency dispatch or private records"), plus the useful note that the brand need not be mentioned. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for the excluded cases, so alternatives are left implicit.

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

All CleanApp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?