zipexplore-mcp
Server Details
US ZIP code intelligence: demographics, weather, tax, crime, housing, voting, and more.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
Each tool targets a distinct domain or operation (e.g., get_air_quality_profile vs. get_business_profile), and the summary tool get_zip_profile is clearly differentiated from deep-dive tools. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tools use snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern: domain-specific tools follow 'get_<domain>_profile', and other tools like search_zips, compare_zips, reverse_geocode are similarly descriptive and uniform.
With 18 tools covering 12 data domains plus search, comparison, reverse geocoding, and centroids, the count is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage for exploring ZIP code data: search, detail via get_zip_profile, deep dives into each domain, comparison, reverse geocoding, and centroids. No obvious gaps exist for the server's stated purpose.
Available Tools
18 toolscompare_zipsAInspect
Side-by-side full profiles for 2–5 ZIP codes. Use when the user has finalists and needs to choose between them. Returns the same profile shape as get_zip_profile for each ZIP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zips | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description mentions it returns the same profile shape as get_zip_profile but does not disclose other traits like read-only, side effects, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple comparison tool with one parameter; could be improved by specifying output format but sufficient given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description adds value by constraining the number of ZIPs (2–5) and linking return shape to a known tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'compare' and the resource 'full profiles for 2–5 ZIP codes', distinguishing it from siblings like get_zip_profile (single ZIP).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use when the user has finalists and needs to choose between them', providing clear context for when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_air_quality_profileAInspect
Detailed air quality data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's air quality section isn't sufficient depth. Includes EPA AQS pollutant levels (PM2.5, PM10, ozone, NO2, SO2, CO) and AQI summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or authorization needs. It conveys only the data content, not operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: purpose and usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lists the pollutants included (PM2.5, PM10, etc.) and AQI summary, but lacks details about output format, pagination, or any behavioral aspects. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'one ZIP code' without specifying format, constraints, or examples. This does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('detailed air quality data') for one ZIP code. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_zip_profile' by noting when to use this tool for deeper data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use when get_zip_profile's air quality section isn't sufficient depth', providing a clear usage context and naming the alternative. Does not specify when-not-to-use, but the alternative implies it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_business_profileAInspect
Detailed business and employment data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's business section isn't sufficient depth. Includes top industries, sector breakdowns, total establishments, employment, and annual payroll from Census BDS/CBP data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It indicates read-only operation and data source but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or data freshness. Adequate for basic understanding but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, no unnecessary words. Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given single parameter, no output schema, and many siblings, description covers data content and usage context well. Lists included items but could mention return format or absence of pagination. Nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, requiring description to compensate. Description implies zip parameter is a ZIP code string but does not specify format (e.g., 5-digit) or constraints. With only one parameter, the hint suffices but could be more explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns detailed business and employment data for one ZIP code, listing specific data points (top industries, sector breakdowns, total establishments, employment, annual payroll) and data source (Census BDS/CBP). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool get_zip_profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use when get_zip_profile's business section is insufficient, providing clear context for selection. Does not mention when not to use or other alternatives, but the guidance is direct and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_census_profileAInspect
Detailed Census / demographics data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's demographics section isn't sufficient depth. Includes population, housing, income distribution, education attainment, economic indicators, internet access, and public assistance rates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It lists the data categories included (population, housing, income, etc.), which implies the tool is read-only and returns demographic data. However, it does not disclose any potential behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, error handling for invalid ZIP codes, or whether authentication is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences with a front-loaded main purpose and a bullet-like list of included data types. Every sentence provides value, and there is no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one simple parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is largely complete. It explains the data coverage sufficiently for an agent to decide whether to invoke it. However, it could be more complete by briefly mentioning the return format or data source (e.g., 'Returns a JSON object with demographic fields').
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('zip') with no description (0% coverage). The tool description adds only that it is 'for one ZIP code,' which is already implied by the tool name. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., 5-digit string) or any constraints, barely adding value beyond the schema property name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'detailed Census / demographics data for one ZIP code.' It includes a specific verb ('get') and resource ('census profile'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_zip_profile' by indicating use when that tool's demographics section is insufficient.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context: use when get_zip_profile's demographics section isn't sufficient. It implicitly excludes using this for other data types, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or other alternatives among the many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_cost_profileAInspect
Detailed cost of living data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's cost section isn't sufficient depth. Includes fair market rents, housing cost burden, regional price indices, and affordability metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state safety, rate limits, or other behaviors. The description is adequate for a simple lookup tool, but lacks detailed behavioral disclosure such as whether it requires authentication or is rate-limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing usage guidance and content details. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description lists included data types (fair market rents, etc.), offering a reasonable expectation of return values. The tool is simple with one parameter. It distinguishes from one sibling, but not all. Overall, it is fairly complete for a straightforward lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'zip' with no description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning, format, or constraints beyond the parameter name. Since schema coverage is 0% (low), the description needed to compensate by explaining the parameter, but it did not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'detailed cost of living data for one ZIP code', specifying the verb (get) and resource (ZIP code). It also distinguishes from sibling 'get_zip_profile' by noting when this tool should be used instead, which is a clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use this tool when 'get_zip_profile's cost section isn't sufficient depth', providing a clear usage context. It lists the type of data included (fair market rents, etc.), which helps the agent decide. However, it does not mention other alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_crime_profileAInspect
Detailed crime data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's crime section isn't sufficient depth. Includes violent crime rate, property crime rate, and data quality flags (coverage level, Bayesian shrinkage).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It discloses specific data points (violent crime rate, property crime rate, data quality flags) and technical details like coverage level and Bayesian shrinkage, giving good insight into behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately details returned data (violent crime, property crime, data quality flags with specifics). It falls just short due to weak parameter semantics, but otherwise complete for a simple one-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'zip', and the tool description adds no additional meaning, format, or validation beyond the schema's type string, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool provides 'detailed crime data for one ZIP code,' specifying violent crime rate, property crime rate, and data quality flags. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like get_zip_profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using this tool 'when get_zip_profile's crime section isn't sufficient depth,' providing clear guidance on when to choose this over an alternative sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_disaster_risk_profileAInspect
Detailed natural disaster risk data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's disaster risk section isn't sufficient depth. Includes FEMA NRI overall risk score, individual hazard scores (hurricane, tornado, earthquake, wildfire, flood, etc.), and expected annual loss estimates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists the data contents (FEMA NRI score, hazard scores, annual loss estimates), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It is adequate for a simple GET-like tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance in the first sentence, followed by a bullet-like list of contents. Every word is informative with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and key data items. However, it could mention response format, data freshness, or availability across all ZIP codes. It is mostly complete but has minor omissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning to the parameter. It only says 'for one ZIP code,' implying the 'zip' parameter represents a ZIP code, but provides no details on format (5-digit vs ZIP+4), validation, or examples. This is minimal additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides 'detailed natural disaster risk data for one ZIP code' and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_zip_profile' by specifying when to use it for deeper risk information. The verb 'get' and resource 'disaster risk profile' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use when get_zip_profile's disaster risk section isn't sufficient depth.' This directly tells the agent when to select this tool over an alternative, providing clear context and condition for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_education_profileAInspect
Detailed school data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's education section isn't sufficient depth. Includes school counts, student-teacher ratios, graduation rates, per-pupil spending, Title I percentage, and budget breakdown (instruction vs. admin vs. capital). May reflect data from the nearest ZIP if no schools are in this ZIP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: data may come from the nearest ZIP if the queried ZIP has no schools. This adds transparency beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, contents list, and behavioral note. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given sibling profile tools and a single simple parameter, the description covers purpose, when to use, output contents, and a fallback behavior. It is complete enough, though it could mention error handling or empty results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'zip' has 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions it's a ZIP code, which is obvious from the name, and lists the tool's output rather than elaborating on the parameter's meaning or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides detailed school data for one ZIP code and distinguishes itself from get_zip_profile by offering greater depth, making it easy to understand the specific resource and verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use when get_zip_profile's education section isn't sufficient depth,' providing direct guidance on when to choose this tool over an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_healthcare_profileAInspect
Detailed healthcare data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's healthcare section isn't sufficient depth. Includes hospital count and ratings, nursing homes, beds per capita, primary care and mental health shortage area designations, pharmacy count, and urgent care count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only lists data types, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and when to use it. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists included data types, which is helpful for an agent. However, it omits details like data freshness, geographic scope (e.g., only US ZIP codes), or any limitations. Given the simplicity of the schema and no output schema, it is moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'zip' has zero description coverage in the schema. The description simply says 'one ZIP code' without specifying format (5-digit or 9-digit), validation rules, or any additional context, adding minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'detailed healthcare data for one ZIP code' and lists specific data points (hospital count, ratings, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_zip_profile by noting when this tool is appropriate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use when get_zip_profile's healthcare section isn't sufficient depth.' While it does not mention alternative tools or exclusion cases, it provides a specific use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_search_fieldsAInspect
Lists every field name, type, and description available for search criteria. Call this when you're unsure what field names to pass to search_zips, or when the user asks what data ZipExplore has.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only listing operation with no side effects, which is clearly implied by the verb 'Lists'. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or mention auth/rate limits, the behavior is obvious for a zero-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose and usage are front-loaded in the first sentence, with additional guidance in the second. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers its purpose and when to use it. It is complete for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it lists field names, types, and descriptions for search criteria, specifically for search_zips. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like profile tools or compare_zips, with a specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'Call this when you're unsure what field names to pass to search_zips, or when the user asks what data ZipExplore has.' This tells both when to use and implies when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_tax_profileAInspect
Detailed tax data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's tax section isn't sufficient depth. Includes state income tax, sales tax, property tax effective rates, excise taxes, and IRS income statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists included tax data types, implying read-only operation, but doesn't disclose potential rate limits or authentication needs. Still sufficient for a simple data retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, data included, and usage context. Lacks mention of return format or limitations but adequate for a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only parameter is 'zip' with no schema description (0% coverage). Description does not specify format (e.g., 5-digit string) beyond implying it's a ZIP code, missing opportunity to add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it provides detailed tax data for one ZIP code, differentiating it from get_zip_profile by specifying when to use this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use when get_zip_profile's tax section isn't sufficient depth,' giving clear guidance on when to choose this tool over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_transit_profileAInspect
Detailed public transit data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's transit section isn't sufficient depth. Includes bus stop count, subway station count, rail station count, light rail count, ferry terminal count, total transit stops, transit commute percentage, and nearest subway/rail distances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It lists the specific data fields returned (bus stop count, subway station count, etc.), setting expectations for the output. It does not mention read-only behavior or any restrictions, but the list of fields conveys the scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two sentences. The first sentence defines purpose and usage. The second sentence lists included fields. No fluff, front-loaded, every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lists the output fields, providing a good understanding of what is returned. It mentions 'nearest subway/rail distances,' adding specific value. It could mention data freshness or source, but overall it is fairly complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required 'zip' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds 'for one ZIP code,' implying a single 5-digit zip code but does not specify format or constraints. With one simple parameter, the description provides minimal added meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Detailed public transit data for one ZIP code.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (transit profile), and scope (one ZIP code). It distinguishes from the sibling get_zip_profile by noting that this tool provides deeper transit data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use when get_zip_profile's transit section isn't sufficient depth.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling. It does not mention when not to use it or other alternatives, but the guidance is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_voting_profileAInspect
Detailed voting and political data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's voting section isn't sufficient depth. Includes presidential election results, partisan lean, congressional and state legislative districts, and state officials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description lists included data types (presidential election results, partisan lean, districts, state officials), giving some transparency. However, it does not mention behavior like read-only nature, response format, or any limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every word adds value; no unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and data contents. It lacks parameter semantics but is otherwise sufficient for basic selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The only parameter 'zip' is not described in the schema. The description mentions 'one ZIP code' but adds no additional semantic context, format, or constraints beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'detailed voting and political data for one ZIP code', specifying the verb ('get' implied) and resource ('voting profile'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_zip_profile' by noting it offers greater depth for voting data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use when get_zip_profile's voting section isn't sufficient depth.' Names the alternative (get_zip_profile) and the condition for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_weather_profileAInspect
Detailed climate data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's climate section isn't sufficient depth. Includes annual/monthly temperature averages, precipitation, humidity, and nearest weather station info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the type of data returned (temperature averages, precipitation, humidity, weather station info) and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but for a simple data fetch tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and contents. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main returned data types. However, it lacks detail on time period (e.g., historical averages? forecast?) and does not address error handling (e.g., invalid ZIP). Minor gaps but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'zip'. The description only says 'one ZIP code' without specifying format (e.g., 5-digit, with/without hyphen). This adds minimal value beyond the schema; explicit format guidance is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides 'detailed climate data for one ZIP code' and distinguishes from sibling tool get_zip_profile by specifying when to use it ('when get_zip_profile's climate section isn't sufficient depth'). This is a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly guides the agent to use this tool when get_zip_profile's climate section is insufficient, implying it should not be used when the basic climate data suffices. This is clear guidance with an alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_zip_centroidsAInspect
Get the latitude/longitude centroid for one or more ZIP codes (max 200). Use when you need map coordinates for a set of ZIPs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zips | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the input limit of max 200 ZIP codes, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error handling for invalid ZIPs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with core action. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description should hint at return format (e.g., array of lat/lng pairs). It does not, leaving agents uncertain about the output structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates. It explains 'zips' is an array of strings for one or more ZIP codes (max 200), adding useful constraints. However, it does not specify ZIP code format (e.g., 5-digit).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets latitude/longitude centroids for ZIP codes, specifying the verb 'Get' and resource 'centroid for ZIP codes'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_zip_profile and reverse_geocode by focusing on coordinates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear when-to-use statement: 'Use when you need map coordinates for a set of ZIPs.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling list offers alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_zip_profileAInspect
Full location profile for one ZIP code across all 12 data domains: demographics, climate, tax, crime, cost of living, voting, education, healthcare, business, air quality, disaster risk, and transit. Use this to get detail on a ZIP after search, or when the user asks about a specific ZIP. For deeper data on one domain, use the domain-specific tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists the 12 domains but does not disclose output format, response size, performance, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage context, third provides alternatives. Information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given single parameter, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description adequately differentiates and guides usage. However, it omits return structure or any caveats, leaving some uncertainty for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'zip' has no description in schema (0% coverage). The description adds no format, example, or validation beyond the tool name implying a ZIP code. For example, it does not specify '5-digit string'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Full location profile for one ZIP code across all 12 data domains' with an explicit list. This distinguishes it from domain-specific siblings like get_air_quality_profile, making purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'after search, or when the user asks about a specific ZIP'. Also provides an alternative: 'For deeper data on one domain, use the domain-specific tools.' This offers both context and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reverse_geocodeBInspect
Convert a latitude/longitude coordinate to a ZIP code. Use when the user provides an address or map coordinates rather than a ZIP code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the conversion but omits details like output format, possible multiple ZIPs, geographical limitations (e.g., US only), or error handling. The agent cannot reliably predict outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage. No unnecessary words; each sentence serves a clear role.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and moderate complexity. The description fails to indicate whether the result is a single ZIP code string, an object, or multiple ZIPs. This leaves a significant gap for the agent to infer invocation expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning beyond parameter names. It merely repeats 'latitude/longitude coordinate' without specifying units, valid ranges, or format, providing no additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool converts a lat/lon coordinate to a ZIP code, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_zip_centroids that do not perform reverse geocoding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises use when user provides address or map coordinates rather than a ZIP code, implying alternative tools for ZIP codes. However, it does not name specific siblings as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_zipsAInspect
Find ZIP codes matching one or more criteria. Returns a ranked list with scores. Use this first when the user wants recommendations (e.g. "find a low-crime suburb near Denver"). Call get_search_fields first if you're unsure what field names to use.
criteria: list of {"field": str, "level": "low"|"medium"|"high"}
area_types: "CITY" | "SUBURB" | "SMALL_TOWN" | "RURAL"
regions: "northeast" | "southeast" | "midwest" | "southwest" | "west"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| states | No | ||
| regions | No | ||
| criteria | Yes | ||
| area_types | No | ||
| minimum_completeness | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a ranked list with scores based on criteria, area_types, and regions. While it doesn't mention read-only nature or edge cases, the description is sufficient for a search tool, though additional details on ranking behavior would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with purpose and usage. It uses bullet-like lines for key parameters, which aids readability. However, it could be more structured to match the input schema, and some parameter descriptions are repetitive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description only vaguely states 'Returns a ranked list with scores', omitting specific output fields (e.g., zip code, city, state). It also lacks details on error handling, result format, and the meaning of 'minimum_completeness'. This incomplete context may lead to incorrect usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the format of 'criteria', 'area_types', and 'regions', but fails to describe 'limit', 'states', and 'minimum_completeness'. These parameters lack any semantic guidance, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find ZIP codes matching one or more criteria' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_search_fields by instructing to 'Use this first when the user wants recommendations'. The verb 'find' and resource 'ZIP codes' are specific, and the mention of ranked results with scores adds clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this first when the user wants recommendations' and advises calling get_search_fields if unsure about field names. It also explains the input structure and includes an example query, helping the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!