Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Orovalley

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Datasets

search_datasets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Town of Oro Valley 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 (Town of Oro Valley 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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return format (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service URL) and the workflow, providing some value beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose page size, error handling, or behavior in no-result cases, so the description adds only modest behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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. The first sentence states the purpose concisely; the second explains the return structure and next steps. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has three optional params, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description covers the tool's purpose, output, and integration with downstream tools. It does not explain edge cases like empty result sets or rate limits, but for a simple discovery tool with good schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions with examples for query and limit, and a clear definition for org_id. The description reinforces the keyword search intent and examples, but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With complete schema coverage, a baseline of 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 the tool searches Town of Oro Valley GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, with specific examples (parcels, zoning, public works, city services). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining it returns dataset metadata and URLs for use with query_layer/layer_info, establishing a clear discovery role.

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 context for when to use this tool: to find datasets before querying them. It explicitly points to query_layer/layer_info as the next steps for using the returned Feature Service URL, implying the appropriate workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with other search-like siblings, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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

All Arcgis Orovalley 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The descriptions are extraordinarily detailed and genuinely differentiate most tools, but the set contains near-clones (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta which is explicitly 'identical' to it, and ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus five polymarket tools whose boundaries (arbitrage vs edges vs edge_tracker vs fill_risk vs kalshi_spread) overlap enough to cause misselection. An agent navigating this surface must read full descriptions to choose correctly, which defeats quick tool selection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but there are clear deviations: bare single-word verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe), prefix-family names (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending; polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk), and a disjoint ArcGIS trio (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) that breaks the dominant convention. It is readable but not predictable across the whole set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far beyond what the 'Arcgis Orovalley' purpose warrants — only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) actually relate to GIS, with 31 unrelated tools bolted on covering financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility. This is a sprawling mega-server where an agent must hold an enormous option set in mind; the surface appears to be several platforms fused together rather than one well-scoped toolset.

Completeness3/5

The genuine ArcGIS surface (search datasets → layer_info → query_layer) is a complete read-only workflow with no dead ends, and the Pipeworx side is impressively comprehensive (routing, grounded answers, research, entity, compare, resolve, validate, memory, subscriptions, feedback). But the tool set as a whole serves no single coherent domain — the declared purpose (ArcGIS Oro Valley data) lacks any write/editing operations, while the majority of the surface addresses unrelated concerns, so 'complete' only applies to one small slice of the 34 tools.

Resources