College Scorecard

Search Schools

search_schools

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search US colleges and universities by name. Returns school name, location, tuition, admission rate, student size, median earnings, and completion rate. Example: search_schools("MIT", "MA").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of results to return (default: 10, max: 100)
`query`	Yes	School name to search for (e.g., "Stanford", "community college")
`state`	No	Two-letter state code to filter (e.g., "CA", "NY")
`_apiKey`	Yes	api.data.gov API key

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	Search query string provided
`state`	Yes	State filter (uppercase) or null
`total`	Yes	Total matching schools in database
`schools`	Yes	List of matching schools
`returned`	Yes	Number of schools in this response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 23, 2026

changedInput schema / examples

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "_apiKey": "your-college-scorecard-api-key",
-    "query": "Stanford University",
-    "state": "CA"
-  },
-  {
-    "_apiKey": "your-college-scorecard-api-key",
-    "limit": 5,
-    "query": "MIT",
-    "state": "MA"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "Stanford University",
+    "state": "CA"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 5,
+    "query": "MIT",
+    "state": "MA"
+  }
+]

First observedJun 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific return fields, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or API key requirements (the latter is in the schema). This is adequate given the annotations but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return fields and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It includes purpose, return fields, and an example. The only notable gap is explicit sibling differentiation, which is more of a usage guideline concern but slightly reduces completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters described and examples provided. The description's example ('search_schools(

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('US colleges and universities by name'), and lists the returned fields. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'get_school', so it loses a point for lack of explicit sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (search by name) and provides an example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'get_school' or other alternatives. No 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

All College Scorecard tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.