Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Abbotsford

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Datasets

search_datasets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search City of Abbotsford GIS open geospatial datasets (parcels, zoning, public works & city services) by keyword. Returns each dataset's name, summary, record_count, owner/org, and its Feature Service url — pass that url to query_layer / layer_info.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax datasets (1-50, default 20).
queryNoKeyword(s), e.g. "parcels", "crime", "flood zones".
org_idNoOptional ArcGIS orgId to override the default (City of Abbotsford GIS).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "parcels"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 10,
+    "query": "zoning flood"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds concrete return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and shows how the output connects to other tools. This goes beyond annotation-provided safety profile to explain observable behavior.

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 two sentences that pack meaningful details: the first gives purpose and domain scope, the second lists return fields and usage instructions. No redundancy or filler words, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and how to use the result, making the tool self-contained and clearly integrated with the larger workflow. The schema examples further enrich the context.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive text for all three parameters (query, limit, org_id). The description references the query concept ('by keyword') but adds no additional parameter details or examples beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action (Search) on a specific resource (City of Abbotsford GIS open geospatial datasets) with scope (by keyword). It lists example dataset categories and differentiates from sibling tools by indicating the returned URL should be passed to query_layer/layer_info.

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 provides clear usage context: search datasets, then hand the returned Feature Service URL to query_layer/layer_info for further operations. It implies the tool is the entry point for dataset discovery but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative search tools.

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

All Arcgis Abbotsford 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all provide data lookup/research. The PolyMarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also creates boundary confusion despite varied signals.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the naming pattern is mixed: some are imperative verb phrases (query_layer, validate_claim), while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, layer_info). Descriptions are readable overall, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is high and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's stated ArcGIS Abbotsford purpose. The set appears to be a generic Pipeworx data/prediction-market toolkit with only a few GIS-specific tools, making the count excessive for the declared scope.

Completeness2/5

For the ArcGIS Abbotsford domain, the surface is severely incomplete: only search_datasets, query_layer, and layer_info cover GIS functionality, lacking update/delete/create operations or broader dataset management. For the actual Pipeworx domain, coverage is decent, but that does not match the server name.

Resources