FBI Crime Data
Server Details
Crime estimates by type, state arrest data, and national crime trends from the FBI UCR
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes: compare_state_crime for multi-state comparisons, get_national_crime_estimates for national trends, get_state_arrests for arrest data, and get_state_crime_estimates for state-level crime estimates. However, get_state_crime_estimates and compare_state_crime could potentially be confused since both involve state crime data, though their scopes differ (single state vs. multi-state comparison).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, descriptive terms (e.g., compare_state_crime, get_national_crime_estimates). The naming is uniform across all four tools, using snake_case and similar verb styles (compare, get), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the count is reasonable for a crime data server, covering key aspects like state and national estimates, comparisons, and arrests. It feels slightly thin but well-scoped for basic queries, though it could benefit from additional tools for more advanced analyses or specific data types.
The tool set covers core functionalities for FBI crime data, including estimates at state and national levels, comparisons, and arrest data. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of tools for city-level data, demographic breakdowns, or historical trends beyond the default ranges, but agents can work around these with the provided tools for most common use cases.
Available Tools
4 toolscompare_state_crimeAInspect
Compare crime rates across multiple US states for a single year.
Fetches crime estimates for each state and returns them side by side
for easy comparison. Useful for grant narratives requiring regional context.
Args:
states: Comma-separated two-letter state abbreviations (e.g. 'CA,TX,NY').
crime_type: Type of crime to compare. Options: violent-crime, property-crime,
burglary, larceny, motor-vehicle-theft, homicide, robbery,
aggravated-assault. Default: violent-crime.
year: The year to compare (default 2022).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| states | Yes | ||
| crime_type | No | violent-crime |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden by disclosing fetch behavior and side-by-side output format, though omits rate limits or error behaviors.
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?
Front-loaded purpose statement followed by concise behavioral note and structured Args section; 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?
Adequately covers tool purpose and all parameters given simple schema; output schema exists so return value explanation is unnecessary.
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?
Completely compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed semantics for all 3 parameters, including enum values for crime_type and format examples for states.
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?
Specific verb (compare) + resource (crime rates), explicitly mentions 'multiple US states' and 'side by side' to distinguish from single-state (get_state_crime_estimates) and national (get_national_crime_estimates) siblings.
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 implied usage context ('Useful for grant narratives requiring regional context') but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance versus sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_national_crime_estimatesAInspect
Get national FBI crime trend estimates over a range of years.
Returns annual national crime estimate data from the FBI Crime Data
Explorer for the specified crime category.
Args:
crime_type: Type of crime to query. Options: violent-crime, property-crime,
burglary, larceny, motor-vehicle-theft, homicide, robbery,
aggravated-assault. Default: violent-crime.
from_year: Start year for the data range (default 2015).
to_year: End year for the data range (default 2023).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_year | No | ||
| from_year | No | ||
| crime_type | No | violent-crime |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds valuable context about data provenance ('FBI Crime Data Explorer') and temporal granularity ('annual') but omits operational details like rate limits or data freshness caveats.
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 clear front-loaded purpose followed by Args documentation; every sentence provides necessary information without 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?
Adequately complete given the simple retrieval pattern and presence of output schema, though could mention geographic coverage limitations.
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?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage by documenting all enum values for crime_type and default values for date parameters.
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?
States specific action ('Get national FBI crime trend estimates') and clearly distinguishes from state-level sibling tools by emphasizing 'national' scope.
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?
Implies usage through scope (national vs. state) but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over compare_state_crime or state-specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_state_arrestsAInspect
Get arrest data for a US state by offense category.
Returns arrest statistics from the FBI Crime Data Explorer broken down
by offense category for the specified state and year range.
Args:
state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX', 'NY').
from_year: Start year for the data range (default 2015).
to_year: End year for the data range (default 2023).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| to_year | No | ||
| from_year | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Identifies the data source (FBI Crime Data Explorer) and mentions defaults, but omits rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behaviors (annotations absent).
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 summary first, data source context second, and parameter details in Args section; no filler content.
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?
Adequate for a 3-parameter tool with output schema present; covers data provenance and temporal scope but could note validation constraints (e.g., valid year ranges).
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?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage: Args section explains all parameters with formats (e.g., 'Two-letter US state abbreviation') and default values.
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?
Clearly specifies it retrieves arrest (not crime) data by offense category from the FBI Crime Data Explorer, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling crime 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like get_state_crime_estimates or compare_state_crime.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_state_crime_estimatesAInspect
Get FBI crime estimates for a US state over a range of years.
Returns annual crime estimate data from the FBI Crime Data Explorer
for the specified state and crime category.
Args:
state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX', 'NY').
crime_type: Type of crime to query. Options: violent-crime, property-crime,
burglary, larceny, motor-vehicle-theft, homicide, robbery,
aggravated-assault. Default: violent-crime.
from_year: Start year for the data range (default 2015).
to_year: End year for the data range (default 2023).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| to_year | No | ||
| from_year | No | ||
| crime_type | No | violent-crime |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions data source (FBI Crime Data Explorer) and return format, but lacks operational details like error handling, rate limits, or data availability gaps; carries burden since no annotations exist.
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 front-loaded purpose, clear Args section, and no redundant text; every sentence provides essential information.
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?
Adequately complete for a 4-parameter tool with output schema available; mentions data source but could note limitations like valid year ranges or state validation behavior.
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?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage by providing concrete examples ('CA', 'TX'), enum options for crime_type, and semantic meanings for year parameters in the Args section.
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?
Clear specific purpose ('Get FBI crime estimates') with explicit scope ('US state over a range of years') that distinguishes from national estimates and arrests siblings.
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 implied usage context (when you need state-level crime data) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus compare_state_crime or other 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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!