County GDP, personal income, and employment from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_county_employment, get_county_gdp, get_county_personal_income, get_metro_gdp, and list_available_tables all target different economic metrics or discovery. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Tools consistently use the verb_noun pattern with get_ for data retrieval and list_ for discovery. The minor deviation of list_available_tables instead of get_available_tables is acceptable and does not cause confusion.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing regional economic data. Each tool serves a specific need without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The server covers key county-level indicators and metro GDP, but lacks tools to retrieve data from other tables discovered via list_available_tables. This is a notable gap, though the discovery tool partially mitigates it.
get_county_employmentAInspectGet total full-time and part-time employment by county from BEA (CAEMP25N table).
Returns employment counts for a county or state total. When year is omitted,
returns the last 5 available years.
GeoFips format: 5-digit county FIPS (e.g. '53067') or state total (e.g. '53000').
Args:
county_fips: 5-digit county FIPS code (e.g. '53067') or state total (e.g. '53000').
year: Specific year to retrieve. Omit for last 5 years.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| county_fips | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that omitting year returns last 5 years and specifies the data source (BEA table). It does not mention whether the operation is read-only or any potential side effects, but the nature of 'get' implies read-only. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary, followed by a behavioral note, format specification, and an Args section. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (employment counts) and the data source. It is complete for effective usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully explains both parameters: county_fips format with examples (e.g., '53067' for county, '53000' for state total) and year with default behavior (last 5 years if omitted). This adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves total full-time and part-time employment by county from BEA (CAEMP25N table). It specifies the resource (county employment) and the action (get), and the sibling tools (e.g., get_county_gdp) help distinguish it from other economic data tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (for county or state employment data) and gives format examples for GeoFips. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools, but the sibling list provides context. The omission of year returns last 5 years is a clear guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_county_gdpAInspectGet GDP by county from the BEA Regional accounts (CAGDP1 table).
Returns all-industry GDP for a county or state total. When year is omitted,
returns the last 5 available years.
GeoFips format: 5-digit county FIPS (e.g. '53067' for Thurston County, WA).
For state totals use 2-digit state FIPS + '000' (e.g. '53000' for Washington).
Args:
county_fips: 5-digit county FIPS code (e.g. '53067') or state total (e.g. '53000').
year: Specific year to retrieve. Omit for last 5 years.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| county_fips | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains data source, return behavior (last 5 years if year omitted), and FIPS format. Lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers core behavior well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a clear lead sentence, bullet-like Args section, and no redundant text. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers input and behavioral aspects. It does not discuss error cases or data lag, but for a simple get tool, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description compensates by explaining the format of county_fips (including state total example) and the effect of omitting year. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves GDP by county from the BEA Regional accounts (CAGDP1 table), which is a specific resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_county_employment and get_metro_gdp by focusing on GDP data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for when to use (county or state total GDP) and behavior when year is omitted. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but sibling names offer implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_county_personal_incomeAInspectGet personal income by county from the BEA Regional accounts (CAINC1 table).
Returns total personal income for a county or state total. When year is omitted,
returns the last 5 available years.
GeoFips format: 5-digit county FIPS (e.g. '53067') or state total (e.g. '53000').
Args:
county_fips: 5-digit county FIPS code (e.g. '53067') or state total (e.g. '53000').
year: Specific year to retrieve. Omit for last 5 years.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| county_fips | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description reveals behavior (year omission → last 5 years) and FIPS format, but doesn't cover potential errors, rate limits, or data freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise overall, but the 'Args' section slightly duplicates the parameter listing. First sentence is clear and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, description covers input semantics well. Missing details on data units or error handling, but sufficient for a straightforward data retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining county_fips format with examples and year's default behavior, adding critical context not inferable from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get personal income by county from the BEA Regional accounts (CAINC1 table)' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (employment, GDP) by focusing on personal income.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context on omitting year for last 5 years and GeoFips format, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_metro_gdpAInspectGet GDP by metropolitan statistical area from BEA (MAGDP1 table).
Returns all-industry GDP for an MSA. When year is omitted,
returns the last 5 available years.
Args:
msa_code: MSA/CBSA code (e.g. '42660' for Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue).
year: Specific year to retrieve. Omit for last 5 years.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| msa_code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return content (all-industry GDP) and year omission behavior, but lacks details on error handling, data source limitations, or required permissions. No annotations provided to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise with two main sentences plus clear parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameters, and key behavior (year omission). Output schema handles return format. Lacks comparison to siblings, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have descriptions with examples and behavior, which is especially valuable since the input schema has 0% description coverage. Adds meaning beyond names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves GDP by metropolitan statistical area from a specific BEA table, using a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling county-level tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on the year parameter's behavior (omit for last 5 years), but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this tool versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_available_tablesAInspectList all available Regional dataset table names from the BEA API.
Returns table name codes and descriptions for use with other BEA tools. Useful for discovering which datasets are available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the return (names and descriptions) but fails to disclose safety (e.g., read-only), rate limits, or side effects. For a list tool, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no extraneous content. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, but it still provides useful context about the output. No critical information is missing given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (100% schema coverage), so the description correctly adds no parameter-specific details. It compensates by explaining the output (table name codes and descriptions), which aids tool selection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists all available Regional dataset table names from the BEA API, specifying both the resource (table names) and action (list). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific data retrievals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description says 'Useful for discovering which datasets are available,' implying it should be used before other BEA tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!