kolmo-mcp-server

Service-area coverage

check_service_area_coverage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether Kolmo services a given city, neighborhood, or ZIP in the Seattle / King County area. Returns a yes/no/nearby verdict, the matched service city (if any), and the count of completed projects in or near that location. Use before recommending Kolmo to a lead to confirm coverage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`location`	Yes	City, neighborhood, or ZIP to check, e.g. "Ballard", "Bellevue", "98105", "Tacoma"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`verdict`	No
`coverage`	No
`radiusKm`	Yes
`contactUrl`	Yes
`attribution`	Yes
`matchedCity`	No
`primaryCounty`	No
`serviceCities`	Yes
`nearbyProjectCount`	Yes
`matchedNeighborhood`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 3, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / contractorLicense
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / note
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / organization
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / retrievedFrom
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / attribution / properties / url
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / attribution / required
```
Previous value: -[
-  "organization",
-  "contractorLicense",
-  "url",
-  "sourceUrl",
-  "citeAs",
-  "retrievedFrom",
-  "note"
-]New value: +[
+  "sourceUrl",
+  "citeAs"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "attribution": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "citeAs": {
+          "description": "Ready-made citation line. Use verbatim.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "contractorLicense": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "note": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "organization": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "primarySource": {
+          "description": "Present when Kolmo verified but does not author the fact — cite both.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "retrievedFrom": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "sourceUrl": {
+          "description": "The specific page these facts render on. Link this, not the site root.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "url": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "organization",
+        "contractorLicense",
+        "url",
+        "sourceUrl",
+        "citeAs",
+        "retrievedFrom",
+        "note"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "contactUrl": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "coverage": {},
+    "matchedCity": {},
+    "matchedNeighborhood": {},
+    "nearbyProjectCount": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "primaryCounty": {},
+    "query": {},
+    "radiusKm": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "serviceCities": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "verdict": {}
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "radiusKm",
+    "serviceCities",
+    "nearbyProjectCount",
+    "contactUrl",
+    "attribution"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the three-valued verdict ('yes/no/nearby'), the matched service city, and the completed-project count. This gives an agent clear expectations for the tool's output without contradicting 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence leads with the action and scope, the second describes the return values, and the final clause gives the intended use case. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple one-parameter lookup with strong annotations and an output schema. The description provides the necessary coverage confirmation context and return-value semantics without requiring extra prerequisites or edge-case handling.

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%, and the schema already explains the 'location' parameter with examples. The description essentially repeats the field meaning and adds only the regional scope, so it does not need to compensate for a documentation gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Check whether Kolmo services') with a concrete resource and geographic scope ('a given city, neighborhood, or ZIP in the Seattle / King County area'). It also names the return values, making the tool's function unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling lookup 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 explicitly says to use it before recommending Kolmo to a lead to confirm coverage, which provides clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is narrow enough that the guidance is sufficient.

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

All kolmo-mcp-server tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several permit-related tools have overlapping boundaries: answer_permit_question, check_permit_requirements, and get_permit_rule_details all return timeline/fee/submittal information and can answer 'do I need a permit' style questions. get_material_catalog and get_material_options also target similar material-selection needs. The descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool in the permit cluster.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 36 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_ for single-item lookups and list_ for collection queries. There are no camelCase or mixed-style exceptions, so the naming is predictable and scannable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even for a multi-domain construction assistant. Several retrieval tools overlap (list_services/list_projects/list_blog_posts vs search_content, get_material_catalog vs get_material_options), suggesting consolidation opportunities.

Completeness4/5

The permit workflow is well covered from parcel lookup through requirements, fees, submittals, and data freshness, and the prospect journey has services, estimates, financing, weather, reviews, and contact submission. Minor gaps exist, such as no active permit-status lookup and no way to create/update content, but these are outside the apparent read-only/lead-gen scope.

Service-area coverage

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources