Underground Utility Permit Review MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| search_permitsA | Search and filter pending excavation permit cases. Use this to find permits by street, city, applicant, project type, permit verdict, or risk level. Returns a summary of each match, not the full utility line detail — call get_permit for that. |
| get_permitA | Retrieve the complete review for one permit case: every utility line near the excavation, its owner, distance, ASCE 38-02 data quality grade, provenance, and crossing risk, plus the overall verdict and which lines need field verification before sign-off. |
| find_utility_conflictsA | Scan the whole permit portfolio for individual utility lines that are dangerous to dig near: close to the excavation, poorly evidenced, or where the county record and the independent detection disagree. This is the cross-portfolio triage question — 'what is about to hurt someone' — rather than a per-permit lookup. Results are ranked by consequence-weighted risk. |
| portfolio_summaryA | Roll up the whole permit portfolio: how many cases sit at each verdict, where the risk is concentrated by city and project type, overall record corroboration, and how much unverified consequence exposure is outstanding. Use this for 'how are we doing' questions rather than per-permit ones. |
| recommend_verificationA | Produce a prioritised potholing plan: which specific lines should be physically exposed before excavation, in what order, and why. Ranks by consequence-weighted risk so a limited field budget is spent where a strike would cost the most. Call with a permit_id for one case, or with no arguments for a portfolio-wide plan. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| permit_risk_review | Walk a permit case the way a reviewer would: verdict first, then what has to be resolved before anyone digs. |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool addresses a distinct question: per-permit search and retrieval, cross-portfolio risk triage, portfolio-wide summary, and prioritized verification planning. Even search_permits and find_utility_conflicts are clearly separated by intent (query-based vs risk-based scanning).
Four of five tools use a clear verb_noun pattern (search_permits, get_permit, find_utility_conflicts, recommend_verification), but portfolio_summary breaks the pattern by using a noun_noun structure instead of something like summarize_portfolio. This is a minor deviation.
Five tools is ideal for this domain. Each tool has a unique role and the count is not excessive or sparse; the server is well-scoped to the permit review workflow.
The tool surface covers the full read/analysis lifecycle: search (search_permits), detail (get_permit), cross-cutting risk (find_utility_conflicts), roll-up (portfolio_summary), and actionable recommendation (recommend_verification). There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.