Skip to main content
Glama

Get Institution

get_institution
Read-only

Everything held about one institution: its identity row, identifiers, addresses, websites, accreditations, relationships, identity history, published costs and calendar dates, each table under its own name, with counts of its programs, courses, checklists, catalogs, policies and agreements and the service that lists each. Contacts name people and are not served. 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
unitidNoOr its IPEDS UNITID instead, e.g. 225070
organization_idNoThe institution's organization id from find_institution, e.g. ORG_225070

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 declared, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses that contacts are 'not served', that per-row source fields describe only one source, that multi-form/multi-source records gain version_count/source_count/first_edition_seen, and that stale records from older editions still appear. These are genuine traits beyond the annotations, though some are return-value detail rather than behavior.

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 a dense, comma-chained paragraph that mixes payload inventory, edge-case rules and editorial notes without structure or headings. The core purpose is front-loaded but quickly drowned; significant trimming would improve usability.

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?

For a read-only single-record get with no output schema, the description usefully documents the shape of the returned composite (identity, identifiers, addresses, costs, calendars, counts). It compensates for the missing output schema, though organization is poor and a few clauses are cryptic.

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 both alternative identifiers (organization_id from find_institution, or unitid). The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 makes clear this is a whole-record read for a single institution ('Everything held about one institution: its identity row, identifiers, addresses, websites...') and explicitly distinguishes itself from list tools ('come from the one-record get, never from a list'). The specific verb is weak and buried under payload detail, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over find_institution or programs_for_institution. The only routing signal is indirect ('the one-record get, never from a list'), and the id source is left to the schema's 'from find_institution' note. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.