NYC Open Data Capital Projects MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_project_budget

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an NYC capital project budget line by FMS ID and optional managing agency to see total, spend, variance, and linked schedules.

Instructions

Budget (FMS line): total, spend, variance; lists linked schedules. NB budget has no 'completed' state; spend%=100 ≠ done.

Interpretation rules:

[relationships] "Project" is ambiguous: PID identifies a SCHEDULE; FMS ID identifies a BUDGET. They are MANY-TO-MANY: a budget can fund several PIDs and a PID can have several budgets. LIST ALL linked counterparts; never silently select one. One linked counterpart does not establish a 1:1 relationship in the reverse direction. A budget without a PID is normal before Design and for lines that do not require schedules; absence alone does not establish missing data. Source-only schedules can also lack dashboard funding links.
[grain] Schedule questions use PID; budget questions use the BUDGET LINE key (managing_agency, fms_id). The same FMS ID under different holders is distinct lines. Schedule history is PID x reporting_period; budget history is budget line x reporting_period; fiscal-year budgets also key on fiscal_year. The schedule source has no fms_id; budget sources have no pid. The combined source repeats rows across PID-budget links and location splits: deduplicate at the requested entity grain before counting or summing. Never compare budgets using fms_id alone.
[population] Listings/rankings default to population_scope='latest_known' (each entity's own latest observation). Use population_scope='current' for the selected complete snapshot. State the population_scope and observation period; respect present_in_current_snapshot. Detail tools use latest-known state and each anchor's latest available link period; these links are not proof of presence in the current complete snapshot.
[budget_baseline] budget_variance is change from the previous reporting period; cumulative_budget_change is latest minus original. State which basis is used. original_budget prefers the adopted first budget, with first_snapshot as fallback: disclose original_budget_source. Adoption months are calendar months from a separate first-budget system, not reporting snapshots.
[lifecycle] Lifecycle: Pre-Design -> Design -> Construction Procurement -> Construction -> Close-out. Schedule progression is reported from Design through Construction. Forecasts and most actual milestones can be suppressed outside those phases; actual_construction_end is the exception and means substantial completion. NULL milestones need not mean missing data. Budget spend%=100 does not prove completion. forecast_past_due is evaluated as of the observation period, not today's date.
[signed_values] Report neutral, SIGNED changes: "moved 45 days later" or "budget decreased $2M". Do not echo loaded terms in the answer. "slippage" means positive schedule change and "overrun" means positive budget growth; neither includes the decreasing side. Preserve the returned direction and metric basis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fms_id`	Yes
`managing_agency`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`answer`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`linked_schedules`	Yes
`interpretation_rules`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / fms_id / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$defs": {
+    "InterpretationRule": {
+      "properties": {
+        "id": {
+          "description": "Stable identifier of the domain rule.",
+          "title": "Id",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "text": {
+          "description": "Guidance for interpreting and reporting this tool's result.",
+          "title": "Text",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "id",
+        "text"
+      ],
+      "title": "InterpretationRule",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "answer": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "title": "Answer",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "interpretation_rules": {
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/InterpretationRule"
+      },
+      "title": "Interpretation Rules",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "linked_schedules": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "title": "Linked Schedules",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "provenance": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "title": "Provenance",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "provenance",
+    "interpretation_rules",
+    "answer",
+    "linked_schedules"
+  ],
+  "title": "BudgetResult",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds far more than the readOnly/idempotent annotations: budget has no 'completed' state and spend%=100 does not prove completion, NULL milestones need not be missing, forecast_past_due is evaluated as of the observation period, and changes are strictly signed. It also warns that the combined source repeats rows and must be deduplicated before counting.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose sentence is well front-loaded, but the body is roughly 2,000+ characters of dense, undifferentiated prose whose numbered categories read like a data dictionary rather than tool-specific usage. Substantial material (lifecycle phases, signed-value conventions) would serve better as shared reference documentation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description thoroughly covers grain, population scope, baseline basis, and lifecycle caveats. The only real gap is parameter-level detail (managing_agency optionality and identifier format) left uncovered by a 0%-documented schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does clarify that (managing_agency, fms_id) jointly define the budget line and that the same FMS ID under different holders is a distinct line, but it never states fms_id's format or that managing_agency is optional and defaults to null.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource: 'Budget (FMS line): total, spend, variance; lists linked schedules.' The [grain] rule explicitly separates it from schedule siblings by keying budget questions on (managing_agency, fms_id) while schedule questions use PID. It is clear but the crisp purpose statement is buried under a large block of interpretation rules.

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?

Gives substantial situational guidance: default population_scope='latest_known' vs 'current', which key to use for which question grain, and instruction to list ALL linked counterparts rather than silently picking one. It never names sibling tools (budget_breakdown, budget_change) as alternatives, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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

Deploy Server