kolmo-mcp-server

Permit fee estimate

estimate_permit_fee

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate the permit fee for a residential project based on jurisdiction, project type, and project valuation. Returns numeric breakdown when the authoritative rule has fee inputs, or qualitative feeNotes (with source URL) when the city publishes fees only as PDFs/spreadsheets. Never fabricates dollar amounts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectType`	Yes	Canonical project type
`valuationUsd`	Yes	Project valuation in USD (materials + labor)
`jurisdictionSlug`	Yes	Jurisdiction slug, e.g. "seattle", "bellevue", "tacoma" (use list_permit_jurisdictions to discover)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`breakdown`	No
`sourceUrl`	No
`disclaimer`	No
`attribution`	Yes
`permitClass`	No
`projectType`	Yes
`jurisdiction`	Yes
`valuationUsd`	No
`lastVerifiedAt`	No	Verification date for the fee schedule. Relay it with the figure.
`qualitativeFeeNotes`	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"
+    },
+    "breakdown": {},
+    "disclaimer": {},
+    "jurisdiction": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "lastVerifiedAt": {
+      "description": "Verification date for the fee schedule. Relay it with the figure."
+    },
+    "permitClass": {},
+    "projectType": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "qualitativeFeeNotes": {},
+    "sourceUrl": {},
+    "valuationUsd": {}
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "jurisdiction",
+    "projectType",
+    "attribution"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedApr 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context beyond that: it explains the two possible result shapes, cites the source-URL inclusion for qualitative notes, and explicitly promises not to fabricate dollar amounts. This strongly informs agent expectations.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with the core purpose first, followed by the behavior nuance and an important honesty constraint. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 only three parameters, full schema descriptions, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains exactly what an agent should expect in both data-availability scenarios. A small gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds no unique parameter semantics beyond restating the general inputs, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') with a clear resource ('permit fee') and scopes it to residential projects based on jurisdiction, project type, and valuation. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by describing the dual output forms (numeric breakdown vs. qualitative feeNotes).

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 clearly implies when this tool is appropriate and explains output behavior, but it never explicitly names alternative sibling tools or states when to prefer this over check_permit_requirements or get_permit_rule_details. The use case must be inferred from the stated inputs and output.

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.

Permit fee estimate

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources