OpenPublica

Search documents

search_documents

Read-only

Search adopted plan and budget documents, returning page-cited excerpts.

Each hit's `text` is a short passage around the match, not the full page —
call read_document_pages with the hit's `first_page` to read it in context.

Every hit carries `first_page`/`last_page` and `source_url`. Quote those
when citing: the page number is what makes the claim checkable against the
city's own copy.

This is word matching, not semantic search — try the terms a plan would
actually use. Only currently-served documents are searchable, so an empty
result is not evidence the government has no such policy; check
list_government_documents for what is held and what could not be read.

A hit with `document_complete: false` comes from a document with
transcription findings. Verify it against `source_url` before quoting a
number from it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum excerpts to return.
`query`	Yes	Words to find in plan and budget text, e.g. 'accessory dwelling unit parking'.
`government_id`	No	Optional account_id to restrict the search to one government.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnly and openWorld hints: hits return short passages rather than full pages, first_page/last_page and source_url support citation, empty results do not imply absence of policy, and document_complete: false flags transcription findings requiring verification. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and returns, then proceeds through citation guidance, search-type caveats, and a data-quality warning. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields, how to use them, edge cases around empty results, and how to verify incomplete documents. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the query parameter should be phrased with literal plan terminology because the search is word matching, which meaningfully informs how the agent should construct the query.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search adopted plan and budget documents, returning page-cited excerpts.' It also differentiates the tool by stating it is word matching, not semantic search, which separates it from semantic-search siblings like search_meetings_semantic.

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 usage boundaries: it is word matching rather than semantic, so the agent should try terms a plan would actually use. It also routes the agent to read_document_pages for full-page context and to list_government_documents when results are empty, naming concrete alternatives and conditions.

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?