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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing safety. The description adds context about what the tool does not do (no permit detail, no verdict) and notes it is free. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not discuss rate limits or authentication, which is acceptable given the annotations' coverage.
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 concise at three sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence provides a crucial exclusion and alternative. The third sentence about paid feeds is slightly extraneous for an AI agent but is short and does not detract significantly. Overall, well-structured and efficient.
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?
For a simple read-only check tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns (counts, open, last activity) and what it omits (detail, verdict). It also names a sibling tool for deeper queries. Annotations cover safety, making the description complete for its complexity.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (address, jurisdiction) described and jurisdiction having an enum. The description's mention of 'street address' aligns with the address parameter but does not add new semantic detail. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 the tool checks whether an address has building-permit activity, specifying exactly what it returns: number of permits, open permits, and last activity date. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_permit_verdict by explicitly noting that permit detail and verdicts are not provided.
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 usage guidance: it is a 'quick check' for activity counts, not for details or verdicts. It directly names the alternative tool: 'use get_permit_verdict for those,' making the decision boundary clear.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct (e.g., get_crypto_spot vs. resolve_price_event), but attest_price_event and resolve_price_event both provide settlement verdicts, differing mainly in the signed record. The descriptions give enough guidance to choose correctly, so this is a minor overlap rather than a serious confusion.
All 10 tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (attest_price_event, check_permit_activity, decode_decision_id, etc.). The verbs vary but are appropriate for each action, and there are no mixed conventions or stylistic deviations.
10 tools is well-scoped for a server covering two distinct domains: building permit intelligence and crypto price settlement. Each domain has a focused set of tools (e.g., permits: list, check, get, find; settlement: get spot, resolve, attest, verify, decode), and no tool feels superfluous.
The tool set provides full coverage for its stated purpose. For building permits, it offers jurisdiction discovery, activity summary, detailed verdicts, and project searches. For crypto settlements, it covers spot prices, settlement resolution, attestation, verification, and decision decoding, with no obvious dead-ends or missing lifecycle operations.