Skip to main content
Glama

Kcmo Query

kcmo_query
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a raw SoQL query against any Kansas City, MO open-data resource (data.kcmo.org) by its Socrata id (8-char like "vsgj-uufz"). Full SoQL: where/select/group/order/limit/offset. Use kcmo_datasets to find a resource id, or kcmo_recent for the common ones.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupNoSoQL $group.
limitNoMax rows (default 100, max 5000).
orderNoSoQL $order.
whereNoSoQL $where filter.
offsetNoRow offset for paging.
selectNoSoQL $select.
_apiKeyNoOptional — your own Socrata app token for higher rate limits. Omit to use the keyless endpoint.
resource_idYesSocrata resource id, e.g. "vsgj-uufz".

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining the Socrata API usage, SoQL clauses, pagination parameters, and optional API key for rate limits.

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 short, direct sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, resource discovery, SoQL syntax, and optional API key. Slightly more detail on ordering/grouping could be added, but it is sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the resource_id pattern, mentioning the keyless endpoint, and referencing valid SoQL clauses.

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 identifies the tool as running raw SoQL queries against Kansas City open-data resources, specifies the resource ID format, and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools (kcmo_datasets, kcmo_recent) for finding IDs.

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 advises using kcmo_datasets or kcmo_recent to find resource IDs, implying when to use this tool. It provides clear context but stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternative exclusions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research cluster is highly overlapping—beta is explicitly identical right now and grounded differs mainly in answer extraction. Several other pairs (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the six prediction-market tools) also blur boundaries, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and benefit from clear prefixes (ask_pipeworx_, kcmo_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). However, conventions are mixed between bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and verb_noun forms, and similar names like polymarket_edges vs polymarket_edge_tracker add confusion.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the bloat range, and only 3 are actually Kansas City-specific despite the server name. The surface bundles prediction markets, memory, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm scanning alongside data lookup, making it heavy and unfocused; several meta-tools could be collapsed.

Completeness4/5

As a read-only data research platform, the surface is quite complete: discovery, querying, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim verification, subscriptions, and memory are all covered with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update, no direct citation-URI fetch tool, and a thin KC-specific set—but agents can work around them.