Skip to main content
Glama

goldseam

by com.ksaworks
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Find Programs

find_programs
Read-only

Which programs match these words, across institutions? Program or award words (optionally one institution's UNITID) answer with each program's award, CIP, published credit figure verbatim, edition, source page and institution. Each row names its current FORM's wording source: source_url, capture_file, catalog_year and source_catalog_name are that one source's, never the record's whole span. A row whose record holds more than one form or more than one source also carries version_count, source_count, first_edition_seen and last_edition_seen, and one sentence saying so in words; a record with one form and one source carries none of them and reads exactly as it always has. The forms themselves, each with its own content and its own sources, come from the one-record get, never from a list. A record last seen in an older edition says so, because the Union keeps a record no current catalog prints.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoOptional city: programs at that city's institutions
limitNoOptional page size (default 20, at most 100)
queryYesProgram or award words, e.g. welding or nursing
stateNoOptional two-letter state: programs at that state's institutions
offsetNoOptional: the next_offset from a previous answer
unitidNoOptional: one institution's IPEDS UNITID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / city
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional city: programs at that city's institutions",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / state
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional two-letter state: programs at that state's institutions",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With only readOnlyHint true, the description carries the burden and discloses a lot: returned fields (award, CIP, credit figure, edition, source page, institution), conditional fields for multi-form/multi-source records, and the special note for records last seen in an older edition. It omits pagination or auth details, but adds substantial behavioral context 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.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is bloated and convoluted, with long run-on sentences about forms and sources that obscure the core search purpose. Key information is present, but the structure is not front-loaded and several sentences could be merged or cut.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return semantics. It does explain the returned fields, conditional version/source metadata, and older-edition behavior in reasonable detail. It still leaves some search behavior and ordering unspoken, but is largely complete for an agent to call it.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds meaning for query and optional UNITID, but does not clarify city, state, limit, or offset beyond the schema. 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 opening question states a specific verb and resource: find programs matching given words across institutions. It also distinguishes the list result from the one-record get for forms. However, it does not name the obvious sibling search_programs_and_learning_units or programs_for_institution, so differentiation is incomplete.

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 it: searching programs by words, optionally scoped to one institution's UNITID. It also notes that forms themselves come from the one-record get, not from this list. But there is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative among the many search/find siblings.

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

All goldseam toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources