Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Carlsbad

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Datasets

search_datasets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search City of Carlsbad 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 Carlsbad 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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints. The description adds behavioral context: the search scope (Carlsbad GIS open data), the returned fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url), and the downstream usage. This exceeds the baseline without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the output contract. No redundant verbiage.

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?

With 3 simple optional params, no output schema, and good annotations, the description provides the key output fields and downstream flow. It doesn't explain search semantics or sorting, but it's sufficient for effective selection and invocation.

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 descriptions for query, limit, and org_id. The description adds a keyword-centric framing and notes the default org implicitly through the scope, but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a specific resource ('City of Carlsbad GIS open geospatial datasets') and lists return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_layer and 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?

It states the tool searches datasets by keyword and explicitly directs the resulting url to query_layer/layer_info, giving a usage flow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear for a search-first workflow.

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

All Arcgis Carlsbad 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple 'ask' tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and multiple 'compare' tools (compare_entities, scan_competitor_ai_presence). Descriptions are verbose but often don't clearly distinguish when to use each, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), camelCase (polymarket_fill_risk), and arbitrary prefixes (scan_, generate_, etc.). No consistent verb_noun pattern; e.g., 'query_layer' vs 'search_datasets' vs 'layer_info' all involve data retrieval but use different patterns.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server purportedly focused on ArcGIS Carlsbad. Many tools are unrelated (e.g., polymarket betting, npm package scanning). The core ArcGIS functionality could be covered by 3-5 tools, but the server is bloated with Pipeworx utilities.

Completeness3/5

The ArcGIS portion lacks update/delete capabilities and is limited to querying. The Pipeworx tools cover a broad range of data sources but introduce many dependencies and meta-tools, creating a cluttered surface with dead ends (e.g., tools requiring paid accounts without fallback).

Resources