B2A Fulfillment Factory

building_permits_code_violations_scraper

Read-only

Extracts municipal building permits and code violations, traces LLC owners to phones and emails, and screens contractor licenses and OFAC compliance for lead generation and due diligence.

Instructions

Extract live municipal building permits (commercial_ti, solar, roofing, adu_addition) and code enforcement violations / pre-foreclosure liens from Socrata & ArcGIS Open Data portals, automatically pierce anonymous LLC property owners to wireless phones & emails, and screen General Contractor licenses + OFAC SDN compliance.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "citiesOrZips": "<citiesOrZips>"
    },
    "name": "building_permits_code_violations_scraper"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`permitTypes`	No	Permit or code enforcement trigger categories to extract
`citiesOrZips`	Yes	Array of municipal jurisdictions or 5-digit ZIP codes to query (e.g. ['Austin, TX', 'Chicago, IL'])
`minJobValueUsd`	No	Minimum declared construction valuation in USD (0 to 100,000,000)
`autoSkipTraceOwner`	No	Automatically pierce LLC parcel owners and resolve verified wireless phone numbers and deliverable emails
`screenContractorKyb`	No	Screen the General Contractor entity against state license registries, GLEIF LEI, and U.S. Treasury OFAC SDN lists

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: data is pulled live from third-party open-data portals, LLC ownership is automatically pierced to wireless phones and emails, and contractor entities are screened against license registries and the OFAC SDN list. It omits practically relevant behaviors such as latency, per-city failure modes, or the possibility of no-hits on skip trace, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core extraction verb and resource before the enrichment clauses, so an agent scanning the first clause gets the point. However, it is a long run-on string of three capability clusters joined by 'and', with promotional phrasing ('automatically pierce') that is harder to parse than a short bulleted breakdown would be.

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?

Input coverage is complete thanks to full schema descriptions, and the annotations handle the safety profile. But there is no output schema, and the description says nothing about what a result record contains (parcel, valuation, owner, phones, license status) or how multi-city results are shaped, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the response for a fairly complex multi-source tool.

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%: every parameter has a description, defaults, and bounds, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description reinforces the outcome of two booleans (autoSkipTraceOwner, screenContractorKyb) and enumerates permit categories, but adds no syntax, limits, or semantics the schema lacks (e.g., how many cities are practical, how ZIP vs city strings are normalized). Baseline 3.

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 description gives a precise verb set (extract, pierce, screen) tied to concrete resources: municipal building permits across four named categories, code enforcement violations, and pre-foreclosure liens, plus the Socrata and ArcGIS sources. It is immediately clear what the tool produces. It loses a point because it bundles three capabilities (permit extraction, LLC skip tracing, contractor KYB/OFAC screening) that sibling tools such as skip_trace_owner_phone_finder and gleif_lei_kyb expose separately, without clarifying when this bundled tool is the right choice over those.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the dedicated sibling tools that overlap with its enrichment steps, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., which jurisdictions are actually covered by Socrata/ArcGIS). At most, the defaults in the schema imply a lead-generation workflow. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the capability list.

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