Skip to main content
Glama

BNM Data Shop

by io.github.bnmbnmai

search

Free catalog search on an extracted-body door. Returns matching rows plus id, the ?id= URL ($0.02), and the page cursor ($0.05). Optional before/date filters. Not a paid SKU. Does not return official bodies.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoFree-text match against the free manifest (id, firm, date, subject).
dateNoFree date prefix (YYYY, YYYY-MM, or YYYY-MM-DD).
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
beforeNoFree filter: page cursor (id) or YYYY-MM-DD older-than date.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses return shape, per-row and per-cursor pricing, optionality of filters, and the limitation that official bodies are not returned. It omits rate limits and auth requirements, but for a read-only search these are not glaring gaps.

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 compact: core function first, then return/pricing details, filters, and exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is redundant.

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 tool with no output schema, it supplies the essential return contract (rows, id, URL, cursor), pricing, and the official-bodies exclusion. The remaining gap is direct guidance on choosing between this and sibling retrieval tools, but the schema plus description cover invocation well.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description only echoes the optional before/date filters and ties the cursor to the before parameter, adding no substantive parameter semantics 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?

Description names a specific verb and resource: free catalog search on an extracted-body door, and specifies exact return components (rows, id, id URL, cursor). It sets boundaries with 'Not a paid SKU' and 'Does not return official bodies,' but it does not name a sibling tool to distinguish against, so it stops short of 5.

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?

It clearly frames when to use the tool—for free catalog lookup over an extracted-body door with optional before/date filters—and gives an exclusion: it is not for official bodies and is not a paid SKU. It provides no explicit pointer to alternatives like get-one or get-page, so 4 rather than 5.

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