nyc-311-mcp

top_problems

Ranks 311 problem types by report volume in a NYC council or community district for a chosen period, with prior-year counts and median days to close; optional agency and status filters.

Instructions

The most-reported problems in a community or council district for a period, each with the count for the same days a year earlier and the median days to close. Optional agency and status filters. From BoardStat (BetaNYC, NYC Open Data, 2020 on); not an official City report. 311 counts are reports, not problems; 'closed' is not 'fixed'.

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": "top_problems"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Rows to list (default 10).
`agency`	No	Agency code as 311 writes it, e.g. 'NYPD'.
`status`	No	'not_closed' = any status but Closed.
`to_date`	No	End, YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive.
`from_date`	No	Start, YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive.
`last_days`	No	The last N days of data, ending on the newest request's day (not today).
`fiscal_year`	No	NYC fiscal year: 2027 or 'FY2027' = 2026-07-01 to 2027-06-30.
`council_district`	No	Council district, 1 to 51. Not with community_district.
`community_district`	No	306, BK06 or 'Brooklyn 6' (all forms: server instructions). Not with council_district.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real value: data provenance (BoardStat/BetaNYC, NYC Open Data 2020 on), the unofficial-status caveat, and the interpretive warnings that 311 counts are reports not problems and 'closed' is not 'fixed'. It still omits what the ranking is sorted by, how ties or missing year-earlier baselines are handled, and any latency or coverage caveats, so it falls short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the core output definition in the first sentence, then tacks on filter and provenance/caveat sentences in descending priority. No sentence is filler; the caveats each prevent a specific misinterpretation.

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?

For a 9-parameter, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool, the description covers output content and data caveats well, but leaves the ranking criterion, default period behavior, and interaction among the date parameters (last_days vs fiscal_year vs from/to) unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would have to resolve from the schema alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by framing the district choice (community or council) and agency/status as optional filters shaping the ranked output, reinforcing which parameters are scoping versus required. It does not add new syntax or defaults 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?

States a specific output shape: ranked 'most-reported problems' in a community or council district over a period, each row carrying a year-earlier comparison count and median days to close. This clearly separates it from address-level or request-level siblings, though it never names a sibling explicitly (e.g. top_addresses or problem_trend) to sharpen the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives implied usage: choose a district, pick a period form, optionally filter by agency and status, and get a ranked problem list. However, it never states when to prefer this over problem_trend, top_addresses, or still_open, nor any exclusions beyond the schema's district mutual-exclusivity note.

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