Skip to main content
Glama

Data Bloomington

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Query

query
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a Socrata SoQL query against a Bloomington Open Data dataset by resource_id (e.g. "yv82-z42g"). Filter with where/select/group/order (SoQL clauses, without the leading $) plus limit/offset. Returns matching rows as JSON.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupNoSoQL $group column(s).
limitNoMax rows (default Socrata 1000).
orderNoSoQL $order, e.g. "date DESC".
whereNoSoQL $where filter, e.g. "year >= 2020 AND status = 'Active'".
offsetNoPagination offset.
selectNoSoQL $select, e.g. "name, count(*) AS n".
resource_idYesDataset id, e.g. "yv82-z42g" (from datasets).

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: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 100,
+    "resource_id": "yv82-z42g",
+    "where": "year >= 2020"
+  },
+  {
+    "group": "name",
+    "order": "count DESC",
+    "resource_id": "yv82-z42g",
+    "select": "name, count(*) AS count"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's statement 'Returns matching rows as JSON' adds minimal behavioral context. No mention of error handling, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the parameters.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose and then specifying parameters. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 description mentions the return format (JSON) but does not elaborate on structure or error cases. Given no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness, but the tool's simplicity and annotations mitigate this.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that SoQL clauses should omit the leading dollar sign, which is a helpful nuance not present in 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 clearly states the tool runs SoQL queries against a specific dataset by resource_id, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'datasets' (which list datasets) by focusing on querying data.

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 explains how to filter and paginate with SoQL clauses and limit/offset, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context from sibling names suggests this is for data querying, not metadata or dataset discovery.

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

All Data Bloomington 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily — ask_pipeworx_beta is functionally identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and the six Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, etc.) have blurry boundaries. The entity-research family (entity_profar, compare_entities, recent_changes) is also easy to misselect despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb_noun (resolve_entaty, validate_claim), bare verbs (remember, recall, query), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and brand-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). Family prefixes and verbs help readability, but the overall pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans loosely related domains — Bloomington open data, Pipeworx research, prediction markets, AI marketing, memory, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. The scope feels heavy and unfocused relative to the 'Data Bloomington' server name.

Completeness4/5

The core research lifecycle is well covered: routing (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles/comparisons/changes, claim validation, entity resolution, subscriptions, and memory all exist. Minor gaps remain — no standalone tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation URI and no API-key management — but agents can work around them.

Resources