NYC Open Data Capital Projects MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

resolve_project_reference

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve project identifiers like PID, FMS ID, names, or partials to matching schedule and budget records bucketed by entity. Use first for named-project questions.

Instructions

Resolve any project identifier (PID, FMS ID, name, partial) → schedule+budget matches bucketed by entity. Call this first for any named-project question.

Interpretation rules:

[resolution] Call resolve_project_reference first for named-project questions. Matches identify candidate entities, not funding relationships: inspect linked_budgets/linked_schedules in the detail tools. Preserve multiple candidates rather than silently selecting one. Follow pagination next_offset when more matches are needed; disclose truncation when reporting an incomplete list.
[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.
[presence] Presence in a selected reporting snapshot means reportable at that period. There is no separate active flag. Historical presence or a latest-known row does not prove presence in the current complete snapshot. A completed project can retain an open budget line for years; presence does not mean construction is in progress.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`offset`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`provenance`	Yes
`budget_matches`	Yes
`schedule_matches`	Yes
`interpretation_rules`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "default": 50,
+  "maximum": 500,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "title": "Limit",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "title": "Offset",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

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

changedOutput schema / (root)

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

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, but the description adds substantial domain behavior beyond that: PID vs. FMS ID ambiguity, many-to-many funding relationships, deduplication requirements, and presence semantics. This is exactly the kind of interpretation context that prevents misuse.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope, and the bracketed interpretation rules are structured rather than rambling. It is long for a tool definition, with some repetition of the many-to-many point, but nearly every sentence carries actionable domain guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's high ambiguity (identifier resolution across schedules and budgets), the description supplies extensive interpretation rules that an agent needs to call it correctly. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gaps are minor.

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 compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter accepts PID, FMS ID, name, or partial, and mentions pagination via next_offset, but it never explains what 'limit' or 'offset' control in this specific tool, leaving the parameter semantics partially covered.

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 states a specific verb (resolve) and resource (project identifier) and explicitly names its role: 'Call this first for any named-project question.' It distinguishes itself from sibling detail tools by clarifying that matches identify candidate entities rather than funding relationships, so an agent can tell it apart from get_project_schedule/get_project_budget without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit routing guidance: call this first for named-project questions, then inspect linked_budgets/linked_schedules via detail tools. It also covers when to preserve multiple candidates, when to follow pagination, and when to disclose truncation, leaving little to inference.

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

Deploy Server