Skip to main content
Glama

Programs for Institution

programs_for_institution
Read-only

What programs does this institution publish? Award, credential class, CIP, the published credit figure verbatim, catalog edition, the captured page each came from, and the checklist ids to pass to get_checklist. 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
limitNoOptional page size (default 100, at most 200)
queryNoOptional program or award words to filter by
offsetNoOptional: the next_offset from a previous answer
unitidYesThe institution's IPEDS UNITID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / unitid / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "225070"
      +]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnlyHint available in annotations, the description adds substantial output behavior: source attribution per form, conditional version_count/source_count, older-edition notes, and the fact that forms are not returned by this list. This goes well beyond the annotation and usefully discloses representation quirks.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It front-loads its purpose but then becomes a dense, run-on paragraph of output-field rules. The detail is useful given there is no output schema, yet the structure is not scannable and several clauses are heavily nested.

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 list tool with no output schema and full schema parameter coverage, the description is complete about return shape and edge cases. It leaves tool-selection guidance thin, but the output context is rich enough to call the tool correctly.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond referencing the institution and the checklist-id handoff.

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 names the resource (programs) and scope (for this institution), so the agent knows it is a read/list operation. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like find_programs, but the purpose is clear without sibling differentiation.

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?

It mentions downstream use of checklist ids with get_checklist and warns that forms themselves come from the one-record get, never from a list. However, it gives no guidance for choosing this tool over find_programs or search_programs_and_learning_units, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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.