FBI Crime Data

get_state_arrests

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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	Yes
`to_year`	No
`from_year`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states this is a 'Get' operation (read-only) and names the data source (FBI CDE) and what is returned. For a simple read tool, this is sufficient, though it doesn't discuss potential limitations or errors.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences plus an Args block. It is front-loaded and efficient. Minor redundancy: 'by offense category' appears twice, but it doesn't detract much. Overall, each sentence earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter read tool, the description is fairly complete: purpose, data source, and parameter semantics are covered. An output schema exists, so return values don't need description. It could mention edge cases or availability, but these are not critical for this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section fully documents all parameters: 'state' format, 'from_year' and 'to_year' with defaults. This adds meaning absent from the schema and fully compensates for the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

First sentence is highly specific: 'Get arrest data for a US state by offense category.' This clearly names the action, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_national_crime_estimates or get_state_crime_estimates by focusing on arrests and state-level breakdown.

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 usage for retrieving state-level arrest statistics by offense category, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions. It lacks a 'use this instead of X' instruction.

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

All FBI Crime Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: national trends, state estimates, state arrests, and multi-state comparison. The overlapping state crime estimate tools are differentiated by single-year multi-state vs multi-year single-state, making confusion unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (compare_state_crime, get_national_crime_estimates, get_state_arrests, get_state_crime_estimates). The use of 'get' for standard queries and 'compare' for the comparative function is predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of accessing FBI crime data. Each tool addresses a fundamental query pattern—national, state, arrests, and comparison—without unnecessary redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the main data access patterns: national trends, state estimates, state arrests, and cross-state comparison. A minor gap is the lack of national-level arrest trends, but the existing tools are sufficient for most core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?