Kolmo Construction

Permit rule detail

get_permit_rule_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Enumerate permit rules with full detail — timeline, fee model, inspection sequence, submittals, required contractor specialties. Filter by jurisdiction slug or keyword. Use for "what does a Seattle ADU permit require?" or to list all rules for a jurisdiction. Pass address to also receive submittals_v2 (structured per-item SubmittalSet from the unified resolver) per rule.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results (default 10 — rules are ~1K tokens each)
`address`	No	Full street address — when provided, each result row also includes `submittals_v2` from the unified resolver (per-item triggers, source citations, filler actor).
`keyword`	No	Keyword in project type, trigger, thresholds, or notes (e.g. "deck", "adu", "egress")
`jurisdiction`	No	Jurisdiction slug or display name (e.g. "seattle", "bellevue", "tacoma")
`onlyAuthoritative`	No	Default true: return only 'authoritative' and 'wa-baseline' rules. Set false to also return every other tier, including 'web-fetched' rows — these are published but deliberately not shown on Kolmo's city pages, and their cited source is not verified to state the rule. Prefer the default.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`parcel`	No
`matched`	Yes
`results`	No
`returned`	Yes
`disclaimer`	Yes
`totalRules`	Yes
`attribution`	Yes
`authoritativeRules`	Yes
`jurisdictionsWithAuthoritativeCoverage`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context on output scope, filtering, and the conditional submittals_v2 enhancement when address is provided. With the safety profile already covered by annotations, the added conditional behavior earns a 4.

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?

Three sentences with strong front-loading: purpose and detail come first, use cases second, and the optional address enhancement last. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema content.

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 read-only enumeration tool with a rich output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers selection, use cases, filters, and the optional enhancement path. Nothing essential appears to be missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The main description restates filtering and the address-triggered submittals_v2 behavior but adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Enumerate permit rules') and lists concrete detail dimensions, plus example queries like 'what does a Seattle ADU permit require?'. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as resolve_permit_submittals or check_permit_requirements, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use scenarios ('Use for ... or to list all rules for a jurisdiction') and clarifies the optional address-triggered submittals_v2 behavior. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so exclusions are missing.

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

All Kolmo Construction tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_neighborhood_project_activity and get_neighbor_permit_activity are easy to confuse, and get_material_catalog vs get_material_options have overlapping scope. The detailed descriptions mostly resolve ambiguity, so it stays above average.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming follows a mostly consistent get_/list_ verb-noun pattern, with a small set of other descriptive verbs like check_, estimate_, and resolve_. The neighbor/neighborhood naming collision and a few multi-word exceptions are the main inconsistencies.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the surface is heavy and exceeds the 25+ threshold, spanning permits, estimates, content, reviews, financing, weather, and procurement. While each cluster has plausible value, the overall count feels bloated for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The set covers a broad lifecycle: permit research, estimates, licensing, financing, ROI, weather, project/services content, reviews, and lead submission. Minor gaps like scheduling/booking and direct estimate persistence prevent a perfect score.

Resources

Need Help?