Skip to main content
Glama

permitverdict-mcp

by io.github.okwithit9-debug

decode_decision_id

Read-onlyIdempotent

FREE. Read what a Permit Verdict decision_id claims and check whether we actually issued it. The id is signed by the same wallet that receives payment, so forgery and after-the-fact editing are both detectable. Needs no payment. This tells you the record is genuine; it does NOT tell you the verdict is still correct — use verify_decision for that. Full paid feeds for humans: https://permitverdict.com/pricing

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decision_idYesA decision_id of the form pv1.<payload>.<signature>

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the signature mechanism prevents forgery and editing, and the tool does not validate verdict correctness. It also clarifies there is no payment requirement, which is not evident from annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description front-loads key facts ('FREE. Read...') and remains informative across a few sentences. It includes a marketing link that is slightly tangential but not excessive; overall it earns a high score for density.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, security model, cost, limitations, and alternative. This is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke and what to expect.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with a format description, so baseline is 3. The description adds the security relevance of the signed format but doesn't go beyond the schema to explain parameter semantics further.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action: 'Read what a Permit Verdict decision_id claims and check whether we actually issued it.' It names the resource (decision_id) and differentiates from sibling verify_decision, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'This tells you the record is genuine; it does NOT tell you the verdict is still correct — use verify_decision for that.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative, plus notes it is free and requires no payment.

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

All permitverdict-mcp 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources