Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Peterborough

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Datasets

search_datasets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search City of Peterborough 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 Peterborough 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"
+  }
+]
  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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about the returned fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and how to use the url, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, no redundancy. The first sentence defines scope, the second specifies return values and workflow.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to proceed (pass url to query_layer / layer_info). The sibling context reinforces this, and annotations cover safety.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, query, org_id), including ranges and defaults. The description reinforces query examples but doesn't add new parameter syntax details, so it meets the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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'), identifies the resource ('City of Peterborough GIS open geospatial datasets'), and lists example content ('parcels, zoning...'). It also clarifies the output and downstream tools, distinguishing it from siblings 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 tells the agent that the returned URL should be passed to query_layer / layer_info, implying search_datasets is for discovery. It also gives example keywords and the default org, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you already have a dataset URL).

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

All Arcgis Peterborough 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

Multiple tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same underlying 5,767 tools with significant functional overlap. Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) also have blurred boundaries around edge detection and fill risk. The ArcGIS tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) are distinct, but the non-ArcGIS tools dominate and create confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming conventions are inconsistent across the set. Some tools use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, query_layer, search_datasets, list_subscriptions), some use bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe, unsubscribe), and others use descriptive multi-word names (polymarket_fill_risk, scan_competitor_ai_presence, generate_llms_txt). The ask_pipeworx family and polymarket_* family are internally consistent, but the overall set mixes styles without a clear pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server that appears to be an ArcGIS data server but includes a massive Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market subsystem. The ArcGIS portion only has 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer), while the rest form a separate general-purpose research/betting toolkit. The count feels bloated and unfocused relative to the server's stated name.

Completeness2/5

The ArcGIS surface is incomplete: search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer offer no update/create/delete or metadata exploration beyond one layer at a time. The Pipeworx portion is broad but lacks clear lifecycle coverage for subscriptions (create/cancel works, but no update), and the memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are peripheral. The set feels like an accidental aggregation of unrelated domains rather than a complete surface for one purpose.

Resources