nyc-311-mcp

boardstat_status

Check NYC 311 data freshness, last build time, newest request, nightly run delays, boundary versions, and known City data problem counts.

Instructions

How fresh BoardStat's data is: when it was last built, the newest request in it, whether the nightly run is late, the boundary versions, and counts of known City data problems (such as requests closed before they were created).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "boardstat_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the report's contents in useful detail, which is valuable behavioral information for a status tool, but it does not state that the operation is read-only/side-effect-free, nor does it explain permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core concept ('How fresh BoardStat's data is') and then lists the specific signals. It is efficient, though the parenthetical example is slightly wordy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must communicate return values, and it does so by enumerating the freshness metrics and data-problem counts. For a zero-parameter status tool this is largely complete, though it could clarify the response format or structure.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and there is no schema complexity requiring further explanation.

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 names the specific resource ('BoardStat's data') and enumerates the exact freshness and diagnostic facts it reports (last build, newest request, nightly-run status, boundary versions, data-problem counts). It is clearly scoped to BoardStat rather than general status, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_status' tool.

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?

The description implies usage—checking data freshness and known data problems—but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as 'get_status' or other diagnostic siblings. An agent must infer the appropriate context.

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