Skip to main content
Glama
EuroScrape

EuroScrape MCP server

Official
by EuroScrape
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

France Building Permits (Sitadel): Projects, Builders & Alerts

get_france_building_permits
Read-only

Fetch official French building permit records from the Sitadel register for a city or department, covering project details, dwellings, floor area, status, and applicant SIREN.

Instructions

Building permits in a French city or department (official Sitadel register): project, dwellings, floor area, status, and the applicant company with its SIREN. Pay per result on your Apify account: run start $0.003, building permit $0.003.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusesNoAuthorized = permit granted, works not declared yet. Started = site opened. The default (authorized + started) is the pipeline of upcoming and ongoing works.
locationsNoFrench cities ("Grenoble"), postal codes ("38000"), arrondissements ("Lyon 3e") or whole departments by number ("38", "69", "2A").
monthsBackNoPermits authorized in this many months before today. The register goes back to 2013.
permitTypesNoHousing = permits creating dwellings. Non-residential = shops, offices, industry, warehouses, farm and public buildings. Land development = subdivisions and serviced plots.
minDwellingsNoHousing permits only — e.g. 10 to keep developer programmes and skip single houses.
minFloorAreaNoApplies to housing and non-residential permits.
maxPermitsPerLocationNoMost recently authorized first. Default here: 25.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: per-result pricing (run start $0.003, building permit $0.003) on the Apify account. It does not describe rate limits, pagination, or result ordering beyond what the schema states.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: what data is returned first, then cost. No filler. Slightly terse on usage, but structure is clean and efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates returned fields (project, dwellings, floor area, status, applicant SIREN), compensating well. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers all parameters. Missing only minor operational detail like pagination or ordering, which the schema partly implies.

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 each parameter (statuses, locations, monthsBack, permitTypes, etc.) is already fully documented in the schema, including defaults and semantics. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (French building permits from the official Sitadel register) and enumerates the returned fields — project, dwellings, floor area, status, and applicant company SIREN. It is clearly distinct in domain from siblings like get_france_property_sales or search_french_companies, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several adjacent French/company siblings (get_france_property_sales, search_french_companies) and no routing or exclusion is offered. The agent must infer usage entirely from the data domain.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools