Skip to main content
Glama

permitverdict-mcp

by io.github.okwithit9-debug

find_active_projects

Read-onlyIdempotent

FREE PREVIEW (5 results). Recently permitted construction projects in a covered city, filtered by declared budget. Use feed='investor' instead to surface expired and abandoned permits (stalled projects, often motivated owners). Full paid feeds for humans: https://permitverdict.com/pricing

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLookback window, default 30
feedNocontractor = newly filed/issued permits (default); investor = expired/stalled
max_costNoMaximum declared job value, 0 = no ceiling
min_costNoMinimum declared job value, default 50000
jurisdictionYesCovered city, e.g. san_francisco

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: the 5-result preview limit, the feed behavior differentiation, and the link to paid feeds, which goes beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the critical free-preview limitation, and every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, preview limit, and feed options, but with no output schema it doesn't indicate what fields the results contain. It also doesn't mention the days parameter or jurisdiction list, which are only in the schema. Overall, it's adequate but leaves some gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about budget filtering and feed semantics, but these are largely already in the schema's parameter descriptions, so no significant new meaning is added.

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 finds active construction projects in a covered city, filtered by declared budget, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the investor feed variant, making its scope explicit and different from other tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (recently permitted projects) and explicitly recommends feed='investor' for stalled projects. However, it doesn't mention alternatives among sibling tools, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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

All permitverdict-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct (e.g., get_crypto_spot vs. resolve_price_event), but attest_price_event and resolve_price_event both provide settlement verdicts, differing mainly in the signed record. The descriptions give enough guidance to choose correctly, so this is a minor overlap rather than a serious confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 10 tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (attest_price_event, check_permit_activity, decode_decision_id, etc.). The verbs vary but are appropriate for each action, and there are no mixed conventions or stylistic deviations.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a server covering two distinct domains: building permit intelligence and crypto price settlement. Each domain has a focused set of tools (e.g., permits: list, check, get, find; settlement: get spot, resolve, attest, verify, decode), and no tool feels superfluous.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides full coverage for its stated purpose. For building permits, it offers jurisdiction discovery, activity summary, detailed verdicts, and project searches. For crypto settlements, it covers spot prices, settlement resolution, attestation, verification, and decision decoding, with no obvious dead-ends or missing lifecycle operations.

Resources