OpenPublica

Find governments by name

find_governments_by_name

Read-only

Resolve a place name to the governments OpenPublica tracks there.

Use this when you know a city/state name but not its coordinates — it returns
matching governments with their `account_id` (prefix matches first), which you
then pass to the search/list tools. Prefer this over `find_local_governments`
when starting from a name rather than a latitude/longitude.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max governments to return (1-50).
`query`	Yes	A place name to search for, e.g. 'Sacramento', 'San Francisco, CA', or a state like 'Texas'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and non-exhaustive nature are covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are prefix matches first, and the tool returns `account_id` values intended for further lookup. This is meaningful but not exhaustive; for example, it does not describe matching ambiguity or result ordering guarantees beyond prefix-first.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, usage context in the second, and the sibling distinction in the third. Every sentence is load-bearing and there is no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only lookup tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers all necessary context: when to use it, what it returns, how the result is ordered, and how it differs from the coordinate-based sibling. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both `query` and `limit` are fully documented in the schema with types, defaults, constraints, and examples. The description reinforces that `query` is a city/state name, but does not substantially add semantic detail beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a place *name* to the governments OpenPublica tracks there.' It also distinguishes itself from `find_local_governments` by clarifying that this tool works from a name rather than coordinates. This makes the tool's role immediately clear and differentiated from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance: use it when you know a city/state name but not its coordinates, and prefer it over `find_local_governments` when starting from a name instead of latitude/longitude. It also explains the downstream action of passing the returned `account_id` to search/list tools, which clarifies why and when this tool is the right choice.

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

All OpenPublica 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clear, distinct operation: government discovery, meeting search, transcript search, document listing, and document reading are all cleanly separated. The three find_governments tools overlap in purpose but are differentiated by input type (name, ZIP, coordinates), and the descriptions explicitly call out when to prefer one over another.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent and predictable verb_noun pattern: find_governments_by_*, get_*, list_*, search_*, read_*, and discover_*. The qualifiers are descriptive and parallel, making the intended action and resource obvious from the name alone.

Tool Count5/5

At 15 tools, the set is at the upper end of the ideal range but every tool earns its place by covering a distinct capability across two related domains: meetings and government documents. There is no filler or redundancy; the count feels well-scoped for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

For a read-only public-records service, the surface is remarkably complete: government resolution by name/ZIP/coordinates, coverage, stats, meeting discovery/search/retrieval, transcript-level search, and document listing/search/reading all have dedicated tools. There are no obvious dead ends—every search path leads to a retrieval tool that can produce citable quotes, pages, or full transcripts.

Resources

Need Help?