Skip to main content
Glama

Kolmo Construction

Neighborhood permit activity

get_neighbor_permit_activity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Aggregate permit activity within ~1500 ft of a Seattle-area parcel over the last 24 months. Returns total count, breakdown by category, and recent example permits (anonymized — no addresses). Sourced from city open-data portals (Socrata). Currently supports Seattle; other jurisdictions return jurisdictionSupported=false. Use to gauge neighborhood activity before quoting an unusual project, or to set homeowner expectations on what neighbors have built.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesFull street address in King, Pierce, or Snohomish County, WA

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
foundYes
activityNo
disclaimerYes
attributionYes
jurisdictionNo
supportedJurisdictionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / citeAs / description
      Previous value: -"Ready-made citation line. Use verbatim."New value: +"Citation line; use verbatim."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / primarySource / description
      Previous value: -"Present when Kolmo verified but does not author the fact — cite both."New value: +"Kolmo verified, did not author: cite both."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / sourceUrl / description
      Previous value: -"The specific page these facts render on. Link this, not the site root."New value: +"The page to link, not the site root."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
  3. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / contractorLicense
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / note
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / organization
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / retrievedFrom
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / url
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / attribution / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "organization",
      -  "contractorLicense",
      -  "url",
      -  "sourceUrl",
      -  "citeAs",
      -  "retrievedFrom",
      -  "note"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "sourceUrl",
      +  "citeAs"
      +]
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "activity": {},
      +    "attribution": {
      +      "additionalProperties": true,
      +      "properties": {
      +        "citeAs": {
      +          "description": "Ready-made citation line. Use verbatim.",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "contractorLicense": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "note": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "organization": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "primarySource": {
      +          "description": "Present when Kolmo verified but does not author the fact — cite both.",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "retrievedFrom": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "sourceUrl": {
      +          "description": "The specific page these facts render on. Link this, not the site root.",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "url": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "organization",
      +        "contractorLicense",
      +        "url",
      +        "sourceUrl",
      +        "citeAs",
      +        "retrievedFrom",
      +        "note"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "disclaimer": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "found": {
      +      "const": true,
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "jurisdiction": {},
      +    "supportedJurisdictions": {}
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "found",
      +    "disclaimer",
      +    "attribution"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  5. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the data source (Socrata city open data), the Seattle-only coverage with the jurisdictionSupported=false failure mode, and that results are anonymized with no addresses.

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?

Front-loads what it aggregates and returns, then coverage caveat, then use cases. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information, with no filler beyond a slightly parenthetical sourcing note.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. Combined with the coverage limitation and anonymization note, an agent has enough to call this correctly; the only gap is the unresolved schema-vs-description jurisdiction discrepancy.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful constraint context: the address resolves to a parcel and only Seattle-area parcels yield data. There is a mild tension worth noting — the schema says King/Pierce/Snohomish County addresses are accepted, while the description says non-Seattle jurisdictions return an unsupported flag, which the agent must reconcile.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource with scope (aggregate permit activity within ~1500 ft of a parcel, last 24 months) and it names what is returned (counts, category breakdown, anonymized examples). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_neighborhood_project_activity, which is the one closely-named alternative an agent might confuse it with.

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?

"Use to gauge neighborhood activity before quoting an unusual project, or to set homeowner expectations" gives concrete triggering scenarios. It also states the jurisdiction limit (Seattle only, others return jurisdictionSupported=false), but gives no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative among the many permit siblings.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources