Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SafeStreets

by io.github.Poseidon-t
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_dangerous_corridors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Road corridors where pedestrians were actually killed, from federal crash records.

Source: NHTSA FARS 2022-2024 (PER_TYP=5, INJ_SEV in 4,6). Each corridor carries the road name, the city, the total pedestrian deaths and a per-year breakdown, so a claim can be checked rather than taken on trust.

Give either a city, or a lat/lon with an optional radius. Use this when someone asks which roads are dangerous, where crashes happen, or wants evidence for a specific street. These are recorded deaths, not a model or a prediction: a road absent from the list had no recorded pedestrian fatality in the period, which is not the same as being safe.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_dangerous_corridors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoLatitude, to search around a point.
lonNoLongitude, to search around a point.
cityNoCity name or slug. Give this or lat/lon.
limitNoHow many to return, default 25.
radiusKmNoSearch radius in km around lat/lon, default 10.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, yet the description adds real value beyond them: the upstream data provenance, that results are recorded deaths rather than a model or prediction, and the critical interpretive caveat that absence from the list does not mean a road is safe. It does not cover result ordering or how the per-year breakdown is presented, but the interpretive disclosure is unusually strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line definition, then source/filters, then invocation rule, then the interpretation caveat. Three short paragraphs, no restatement of the name or title, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Covers everything needed to call and interpret the tool: what it returns per corridor (road name, city, total deaths, per-year breakdown), how to supply inputs, and how to read an empty result. With no output schema this disclosure is what makes the results usable.

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 earns an extra point by stating the mutual exclusivity that the schema only hints at ("Give either a city, or a lat/lon with an optional radius"), telling the agent how to combine the parameters rather than just what they are.

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?

Names a specific resource (road corridors with recorded pedestrian fatalities) and a specific verb (get), plus the exact data source and filters (NHTSA FARS 2022-2024, PER_TYP=5). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like get_city_walkability or find_walkable_neighborhoods, which score areas rather than list fatality sites.

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?

"Use this when someone asks which roads are dangerous, where crashes happen, or wants evidence for a specific street" gives concrete trigger scenarios, and "Give either a city, or a lat/lon with an optional radius" states the input-mode constraint. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative for adjacent questions (e.g. general walkability), so the routing is implied rather than exhaustive.

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

All SafeStreets toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources