Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Kolmo Construction

by io.kolmo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Real time-to-permit

get_permit_timeline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Measured days from application to issue (median and 80th percentile), City vs applicant days, and review cycles, from the city's issued-permit records. A city not yet covered returns the covered list; groups under 30 permits are not reported.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subtypeNo
projectTypeYesnew-multifamily: townhouses and other middle-housing units built as a set
valuationUsdNo
jurisdictionSlugNoseattle

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summaryYes
attributionYes

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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectType / description
      Added value: +"new-multifamily: townhouses and other middle-housing units built as a set"
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectType / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "adu",
-  "addition",
-  "deck",
-  "basement",
-  "alteration",
-  "new-home"
-]New value: +[
+  "adu",
+  "addition",
+  "deck",
+  "basement",
+  "alteration",
+  "new-home",
+  "new-multifamily"
+]
  4. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds valuable edge-case behavior: uncovered cities return the covered list, and groups under 30 permits are suppressed, which an agent could not learn from annotations or schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the returned metrics front-loaded and the coverage/suppression caveats following. No filler, though the parenthetical metric list is dense and could be split for readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The presence of an output schema means return values need no explanation, and the coverage caveat is a plus. However, with four parameters at 25% schema coverage, the description leaves meaningful ambiguity about how subtype and valuationUsd shape the timeline result, so it is only adequately complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only projectType has any enum documentation), so the description needs to compensate and does not. It never explains subtype's role, what valuationUsd affects, or that jurisdictionSlug drives the city coverage/suppression behavior, leaving three of four parameters semantically thin.

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 specific resource and the exact metrics returned: measured days from application to issue, median and 80th percentile, city vs applicant days, and review cycles. That clearly delimits the tool from siblings such as check_permit_requirements (requirements) and get_permit_data_freshness (data recency), though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., check_permit_requirements, estimate_permit_fee). The reader can infer the tool answers time-to-permit questions, but nothing routes them here versus another tool.

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

All Kolmo Construction toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources