Skip to main content
Glama

CivicDataForge Public-Records Data

by io.github.equinoxaifinance-rgb

Multi-State Childcare Licensing

civicdataforge--multistate-childcare-licensing

Use for cross-state childcare licensing, inspection, and deficiency research across supported states. For Texas-only operation, inspection, or deficiency filters, use texas-childcare-licensing instead. Starts the bound Apify Actor with the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, and returns at most 1,000 source-linked rows without modifying government records.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countyNoFilter to one county (e.g. 'Sussex', 'Oneida', 'Boulder'). Applied server-side where the state feed carries a county column; CT publishes no county so a county filter returns no CT rows. Leave empty for statewide.
statesNoWhich states to pull. Available: NY (16.8k facilities), NJ (4.2k), CO (4.5k), CT (16.2k + inspections), DE (1.2k + inspections & deficiencies). Leave empty for all five.
licenseStatusNoCase-insensitive substring match on the facility's license status (e.g. 'ACTIVE', 'License', 'Licensed'). Leave empty for all statuses.
minDeficienciesNoOnly return facilities with at least this many cited deficiencies (compliance screening). Deficiency counts are published only by Delaware; other states have none, so this filter excludes them.
maxInspectionRowsNoCap the inspection/deficiency rows fetched per state before building the per-facility compliance lookup (leave empty to read the full feed; CT ships ~97k inspection rows).
includeInspectionsNoWhen on, fetch each state's inspection/deficiency feed and merge per-facility inspection_count and (DE) deficiency_count + top cited regulations. Turn off for a faster, licensing-only pull. Only affects CT and DE.
maxRecordsPerStateNoCap the number of facility records pulled from each state (leave empty for the full registry).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses meaningful runtime behavior beyond the annotations: it starts a bound Apify Actor, uses the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, returns at most 1,000 rows, and does not modify government records. This is highly valuable and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's purpose and routing guidance, then states operational constraints. Every clause adds useful information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers purpose, scope, alternatives, cost behavior, timeout, row limits, and non-destructiveness, which is strong for a complex tool. The only notable gap is that there is no output schema and the return shape is only vaguely described as 'source-linked rows,' but the rich parameter schema mitigates this.

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 100%, and each parameter already has detailed semantics such as county limitations, state availability, deficiency-count restrictions, and inspection-row caps. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 explicitly states the tool is for cross-state childcare licensing, inspection, and deficiency research, naming both the domain and the multi-state scope. It also differentiates itself from texas-childcare-licensing, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without reading schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition (cross-state research) and an explicit when-not-to-use condition with a named alternative (Texas-only operations should use texas-childcare-licensing). This leaves little ambiguity for tool selection.

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

All CivicDataForge Public-Records Data toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The domain-specific tools are clearly separated by record type, with explicit cross-references that reduce confusion between similar categories like Texas vs. multistate childcare or STR permits vs. Florida DBPR lodging. The main ambiguity is the broad evidence-gateway tool, which overlaps with several specialized query tools and could be selected instead of the more precise one.

Naming Consistency4/5

The domain tools follow a consistent civicdataforge-- prefix pattern, and the Apify utilities follow a get-/abort- verb pattern, making the overall set readable. Minor deviations include the awkward civicdataforge--civicdataforge-evidence-gateway duplication and the mix between noun-style domain tools and verb-style utility tools.

Tool Count5/5

With 14 tools, the set is well-scoped: ten specialized public-record query tools plus four Apify lifecycle/data-access utilities. Each tool has a distinct role, and the count is appropriate for the breadth of supported public records without feeling bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a broad range of public-record evidence categories and provides the necessary run, dataset, and key-value-store operations for working with results. Minor gaps include a lack of discovery tools for listing supported jurisdictions/sources and no general-purpose search across all record types, but the core evidence workflows are well covered.

Resources