Skip to main content
Glama

Census Data (1795–1899)

get_census_data
Read-only

Dutch census data for a place and year

Retrieves census data for a Dutch place or municipality for the census year nearest to the specified year. Available census years: 1795, 1830, 1840, 1849, 1859, 1869, 1879, 1889, 1899. Data sources: Volkstellingen.nl (DANS) and Gemeentegeschiedenis.nl. Either place or gg_uri must be provided.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearYes
placeNo
gg_uriNo
provinceNo
richnessNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining the nearest-year rounding behavior and listing valid census years. This behavioral insight is not redundant with the annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by year details, sources, and input requirements. The data-source sentence is extra but not verbose; overall no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description provides a good overview but omits semantics for `province` and `richness`, and since there is no output schema, it also does not describe the response structure. This leaves gaps for an agent needing to understand what data will be returned or how richness affects results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that year is matched to the nearest available census year and that either place or gg_uri must be provided. However, it does not explain the `province` parameter or the `richness` enum (1,2,3), leaving these semantics incomplete.

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 'Retrieves census data for a Dutch place or municipality for the census year nearest to the specified year,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_births and get_deaths by focusing on census data, mentioning data sources and available years.

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 description gives clear context for use (Dutch census data by place/year) and explicitly notes the input requirement that 'Either `place` or `gg_uri` must be provided.' However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, e.g., browse/search/show/view transcriptions are well differentiated. The stats tools (get_event_type_stats vs get_source_type_stats vs get_record_stats) are similar in structure but each targets a unique dimension, and names make the distinction clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case and are descriptive, but they mix verb prefixes: browse, get, match, search, show, view. This is not fully consistent, though each verb aligns with the action. Some names like get_births_years_ago are less patterned than others.

Tool Count3/5

With 22 tools, the set is on the heavier side but justifiably covers diverse features: genealogical records, transcriptions, statistics, weather, census, and archives. It borders on too many, but the scope is broad enough to support them.

Completeness4/5

The domain of genealogical archives is well covered with search, show, browse, stats, and matching tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit user comment tools beyond stats, no direct archive detail endpoint separate from list), but core workflows are supported.