Skip to main content
Glama
ccedacero

nyc-property-intel

by ccedacero

get_fdny_fire_incidents

Retrieve FDNY fire and emergency incident history for a property address or BBL. Analyze fire risk, structural fires, and EMS call patterns for due diligence.

Instructions

Get FDNY fire and emergency incident history for a property address.

Queries the local FDNY incident database (NYC Open Data dataset 8m42-w767).
Returns fire incidents, structural fires, EMS responses, and other emergency
calls associated with a property's zip code and borough. Falls back to the
Socrata API for finer-grained address matching if local table unavailable.

Use this to identify fire history, structural fire risk, repeated emergency
responses, or patterns of emergency calls at a property's location.

Provide either `address` OR `bbl` (not both). If BBL is given, the tool
resolves it to a zip code before querying.

Args:
    address: Street address, e.g. "37-06 80th Street, Queens" or
             "350 5th Ave, Manhattan". Borough or zip code recommended.
    bbl: 10-digit NYC BBL, e.g. "4008020015". Alternative to address.
    incident_type: Filter by incident type keyword, e.g. "FIRE",
                   "STRUCTURAL", "EMS", "MEDICAL". Case-insensitive.
    since_year: Return only incidents from this year onward, e.g. 2018.
                Data available from 2013.
    limit: Max incidents to return (1–100, default 20).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressNo
bblNo
incident_typeNo
since_yearNo
limitNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it queries a local database with Socrata API fallback, resolves BBL to zip code, and returns incidents associated with zip code/borough. It also mentions data availability from 2013. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, and a bullet-style parameter list. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavior. It explains BBL resolution, date filters, and limit constraints. Minor omissions like pagination don't significantly detract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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 provides clear details for each parameter: address examples, BBL format, incident_type keywords, since_year range, and limit range with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves FDNY fire and emergency incident history for a property address, specifying data sources and fallback behavior. It distinctly targets a niche not covered by sibling tools like get_311_complaints or get_building_permits.

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?

The description advises using the tool to identify fire history and structural fire risk, and explicitly warns against providing both address and BBL. However, it does not elaborate on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ccedacero/nyc-property-intel'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server