FREE. Quick check on whether a street address has building-permit activity on record: how many permits, how many are open, and when the last activity was. No permit detail and no verdict — use get_permit_verdict for those. Full paid feeds for humans: https://permitverdict.com/pricing
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Street address, e.g. '760 14th St' | |
| jurisdiction | Yes | Covered city, e.g. san_francisco |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the tool is free, quick, and returns only summary counts (no details or verdicts). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with 'FREE' and 'Quick check,' then states the key output. It uses two sentences to cover purpose, limitations, and alternatives with zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the input (street address and jurisdiction), the output (counts, open permits, last activity), and limitations. It also provides an alternative tool, making it complete for an agent to know when and how to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for 'jurisdiction' (enum) and 'address' (example provided). The description does not add param-specific detail beyond the schema, but it clarifies the overall purpose that ties the parameters together. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: it checks a street address for building-permit activity, reporting permit counts, open permits, and last activity. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_permit_verdict by stating it provides no permit detail or verdict, making the purpose specific and non-overlapping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: use this tool for a quick summary of permit activity, and use get_permit_verdict when permit detail or a verdict is needed. It also mentions the paid human feeds, further clarifying scope and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: permit tools (check, get verdict, find projects, list jurisdictions) are separated from crypto settlement tools (resolve, attest, verify, decode, spot, list assets). Even the closely related resolve/attest/verify trio is well-differentiated via descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (e.g., check_permit_activity, resolve_price_event, list_settlement_assets). No mixed conventions or vague verbs, making the API predictable.
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for a dual-domain server. Each tool earns its place, providing comprehensive coverage without redundancy or bloat.
The permit side covers discovery, quick checks, full verdicts, and project searches. The crypto side covers resolution, attestation, verification, decoding, spot prices, and asset discovery. Minor gap: no way to list historical decisions or events, but that's not essential for the primary workflows.