Skip to main content
Glama

BNM Data Shop

by io.github.bnmbnmai

get-page

Paid get-page on an extracted-body door. Same URL as the door GET ($0.05). Omit before/page for the newest 10 official texts; pass the free-index cursor for an older page. Not a new SKU. Unpaid returns HTTP 402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doorNoExtracted-body door name, e.g. gmp. One of: warning-letters, untitled-letters, form-483, gmp, gmp-md, awa, swisspar, pcac, ftc-wl, cfpb-orders, occ-cd, fdic-orders, frb-orders, ncua-orders, fincen-orders, ferc-orders, ofac-orders, bis-orders, cftc-orders, fifra-orders, denovo-orders, ttb-oic, air-letters, superfund-rods, ico-mpn, cma-ca98, ema-referrals, cder-reviews, npdes-permits, ofsted-inspections, ofwat-enforcement, ofgem-enforcement, gain, orr-enforcement, phmsa-orders, aaib-reports
pageNo1-based page. Page 1 is the newest chunk. Ignored when before is set.
beforeNoOfficial catalog id or YYYY-MM-DD from free search. Next older page, another $0.05.
x_paymentNoOptional x402 X-PAYMENT value forwarded to the paid GET as the X-PAYMENT header.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the $0.05 cost, the fact that this is not a new SKU, and that unpaid calls return HTTP 402. Still, it does not explain authentication requirements, rate limits, or the shape of the returned page beyond '10 official texts.'

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four compact sentences front-load the purpose and then cover cost, pagination behavior, SKU identity, and error response. Every sentence serves a purpose, though some phrasing is dense and could be clearer.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple four-parameter tool with all parameters schema-documented, the description provides enough operational context: cost, error behavior, page semantics, and relationship to the door GET. It could add a return-format note, but the absence of an output schema is not fatal here.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context ('newest 10', 'free-index cursor') but does not provide substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the action (paid get-page) and the target resource (an extracted-body door), and clarifies that omitting parameters returns the newest 10 official texts. It is more specific than the tool name alone, though the term 'door' and 'SKU' are jargon that require schema knowledge to fully resolve.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a practical usage distinction: omit before/page for the newest page, or pass a free-index cursor for older pages. However, it does not explicitly position this against sibling tools like get-one or search, leaving some selection inference to the agent.

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

All BNM Data Shop toolsInspect
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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct regulatory document collections (FDA, EPA, FDIC, etc.), so the majority are unambiguous. However, 'search' and 'firm-check' both offer free search with overlapping scope, and 'get-one' vs 'get-page' are easily confused payment operations. Similar prefixed names like mariners, mariners-d7/d8/d11 and gmp/gmp-md add further boundary fuzziness.

Naming Consistency3/5

The bulk of tools follow a consistent lowercase-hyphenated source-slug convention (aaib-reports, cder-reviews, cfpb-orders), which is predictable. But utility tools break the pattern with imperative/descriptive names (search, firm-check, get-one, get-page), and 'ticks' is a bare noun that doesn't fit either style. The mixed conventions are readable but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

At 46 tools, this is a heavy surface that will be unwieldy for an agent to navigate and select from. Each tool does represent a distinct data product, but the sheer volume exceeds what earns its place in a coherent MCP tool set. A door-based catalog design might work better with a smaller number of parameterized tools.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is well covered: per-door search, cross-door search, single-document retrieval via ?id=, paginated page retrieval, and payment handling are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to enumerate all available doors/catalogs or inspect schemas, and firm-check returns only citations rather than bodies. Overall it's a complete access lifecycle for the data-shop domain.

Resources