Zoning Signal

Meeting Index

meeting_index

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return meeting readings for a specific city across an optional date range. A meeting reading is a plain-English read of one harvested planning-board, council, or commission meeting, with signal extraction and entity mapping. Use to drill from a city or corridor into the temporal record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	Yes	City name (e.g., "Clermont"). Case-insensitive.
`to_date`	No	Inclusive upper bound (ISO 8601 date). Omit for the latest reading.
`from_date`	No	Inclusive lower bound (ISO 8601 date). Omit to span back to the earliest reading.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	No
`count`	No
`to_date`	No
`meetings`	No
`from_date`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description enhances this by explaining the output's nature (plain-English, signal extraction, entity mapping) and the temporal scoping, adding context beyond structured annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earns its place: function, definition of key term, and usage context. Front-loaded and free of redundant wording.

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 filtered tool with full schema and output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, semantic meaning, temporal scope, and usage, with annotations covering safety and idempotency.

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 coverage is 100%, with city, to_date, and from_date fully documented. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating the optional date range, providing only marginal added value over the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns meeting readings for a specific city with an optional date range, and defines 'meeting reading' as a plain-English read with signal extraction and entity mapping. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_meetings or describe_meeting by scope and depth.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The final sentence provides an explicit use case: 'Use to drill from a city or corridor into the temporal record.' While it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, the context is clear enough to guide selection among sibling tools.

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

All Zoning Signal 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct by resource type (describe/list pairs for places, corridors, entities, patterns, watches), but list_meetings and meeting_index overlap heavily—the former explicitly says it has the same response shape as the latter, differing only in required parameters. That near-duplication creates ambiguity about which to call.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (describe_*, list_*), with get_track_record and submit_agent_feedback also verb-led. However, meeting_index is a bare noun phrase and semantic_search is a noun compound, deviating from the otherwise strong pattern.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the server is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the count is justified by the many content types (six primary artifact types each with list+describe, plus meta tools). One could argue meeting_index is redundant, but the overall scope feels reasonable.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers the core lifecycle for all named content types (places, corridors, patterns, entities, meetings, watches) with discovery and description. However, the corpus repeatedly references 'briefs' (e.g., related briefs, semantic_search returns 'named-pattern briefs') yet there is no list_briefs or describe_brief tool, leaving an obvious content gap.

Resources

Need Help?