Skip to main content
Glama
Baneado98

muni-dev-cost

rank_jurisdictions_by_cost

Rank US jurisdictions by total or water-sewer development cost to identify cheapest or most expensive markets. Filter by state, coverage, or development type.

Instructions

Rank EVERY covered US jurisdiction cheapest-to-priciest on municipal development cost — the national site-selection leaderboard a developer wants when the question is 'where in the country is it cheapest (or most expensive) to build?'. Rank on water+sewer only or on the GRAND TOTAL across every fee category (water, sewer, transportation, parks, drainage, fire, police, library). Returns the full ranked list with each market's water+sewer vs other split, plus the cheapest / median / priciest, the dollar spread and what that spread costs on a 100-unit project. Filter by 'state' or 'coverage'. Only jurisdictions with the city's OWN published figures are ranked (state-benchmark estimates are excluded). This is computable only over the full normalized cross-jurisdiction dataset — exactly what an agent can't assemble itself. Optionally pass 'basis' ('total' default, or 'water_sewer'), 'dev_type', 'meter_size', 'state', 'coverage', 'limit'. PREMIUM: pay per call with x402 (USDC on Base) or set a prepaid key (MUNI_DEV_COST_KEY).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
basisNo'total' (grand total across all fee categories, default) or 'water_sewer' (water+sewer only).
dev_typeNoDevelopment type (default single_family).
meter_sizeNoWater meter size for per-meter-table jurisdictions (default 5/8").
stateNoFilter to a 2-letter state code (e.g. 'TX'). Optional.
coverageNoFilter: 'deep' or 'partial'. Optional.
limitNoReturn only the top N rows. Optional (default: all).
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only jurisdictions with the city's own published figures are ranked (excluding state-benchmark estimates), and that it is computable only over the normalized dataset. It also mentions the premium payment model. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 is lengthy but front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds necessary detail, though some restructuring could improve readability. It efficiently conveys complex behavior without excess.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers what is returned: the full ranked list, cheapest/median/priciest, dollar spread, and cost on a 100-unit project. With 6 optional parameters fully described, the description is complete for practical use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds value by explaining the 'basis' parameter ('total' vs 'water_sewer') and providing default values ('single_family', '5/8"', 'all'). It also clarifies filtering by 'state' and 'coverage' beyond what the schema says.

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?

The description uses specific verbs ('rank... cheapest-to-priciest') and identifies the unique resource ('national site-selection leaderboard'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on the cross-jurisdiction ranking use case, which no other sibling tool addresses.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: when the question is 'where in the country is it cheapest to build?' It also notes that it is only for jurisdictions with published figures and mentions premium payment. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, the context is clear enough.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Baneado98/muni-dev-cost'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server