io.github.woonstadrotterdam/monumenten

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_monumental_status

Read-only

Check the monumental status of a Dutch address by its BAG verblijfsobject ID, identifying national, protected cityscape, or municipal monuments. Includes source for Rijksmonument status.

Instructions

Get the monumental status of a verblijfsobject.

Always mention the source for the Rijksmonument status if it is a Rijksmonument. (RCE = Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed.) Reply in the user's language. provinciaal_monument is not looked up.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bag_verblijfsobject_id`	Yes	The verblijfsobject ID (16 digits)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`provincie`	No	Current Dutch province of the verblijfsobject. Null if the provincie lookup failed.
`rijksmonument`	No
`rijksmonument_url`	No
`rijksmonument_bron`	No
`provinciaal_monument`	No	Provincial monument. Always null: this status is not looked up. It only exists in Noord-Holland and Drenthe, and is mutually exclusive with rijksmonument and gemeentelijk_monument. If provincie is one of those or unknown, and the other monument flags are not true, tell the user this was not checked, in the user's language. Do not report it as false.
`rijksmonument_nummer`	No
`gemeentelijk_monument`	No
`bag_verblijfsobject_id`	Yes
`rijksbeschermd_gezicht`	No	Nationally protected town or village scape (rijksbeschermd stads- of dorpsgezicht). false does not mean the address is outside a municipal or provincial beschermd stadsgezicht; those are not looked up.
`rijksbeschermd_gezicht_naam`	No
`grondslag_gemeentelijk_monument`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.0.1Sep 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / provinciaal_monument

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Provincial monument. Always null: this status is not looked up. It only exists in Noord-Holland and Drenthe, and is mutually exclusive with rijksmonument and gemeentelijk_monument. If provincie is one of those or unknown, and the other monument flags are not true, tell the user this was not checked, in the user's language. Do not report it as false.",
+  "title": "Provinciaal Monument"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / provincie

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Current Dutch province of the verblijfsobject. Null if the provincie lookup failed.",
+  "title": "Provincie"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / rijksbeschermd_gezicht / description

Added value: +"Nationally protected town or village scape (rijksbeschermd stads- of dorpsgezicht). false does not mean the address is outside a municipal or provincial beschermd stadsgezicht; those are not looked up."

First observedv3.0.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not burdened with basic safety disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context: always cite the RCE source for Rijksmonument status, reply in the user's language, and do not expect provinciaal_monument to be resolved. This adds genuine value beyond the 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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, and the additional instructions are terse and each earns its place. The structure is slightly loose due to the parenthetical abbreviation and the mixing of output formatting with tool behavior, but there is no filler.

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 single fully documented parameter corrections and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the important non-obvious behaviors: source citation, language handling, and the provinciaal_monument limitation. An explicit pointer to the sibling for obtaining the ID would improve completeness, but that is more of a usage-routing enhancement than a critical gap.

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 coverage is 100%: the schema already describes bag_verblijfsobject_id as the 16-digit verblijfsobject ID. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the action and resource: it gets the monumental status of a verblijfsobject. The sibling get_verblijfsobject_id is clearly a different operation, but the description does not explicitly contrast the two, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool (when a verblijfsobject ID is known and monumental status is needed) and explicitly states that provinciaal_monument is not looked up. However, it does not mention the sibling get_verblijfsobject_id or explain when that alternative should be used, leaving the routing largely implicit.

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

Deploy Server