Skip to main content
Glama

Data Mesa

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Query

query
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a Socrata SoQL query against a Mesa Open Data dataset by resource_id (e.g. "2gkz-7z4f"). 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. "2gkz-7z4f" (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": "2gkz-7z4f",
+    "where": "year >= 2020"
+  },
+  {
+    "group": "department",
+    "order": "total DESC",
+    "resource_id": "2gkz-7z4f",
+    "select": "department, count(*) AS total"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns JSON and that SoQL clauses are used without the leading $, which are important behavioral details. No contradictions.

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: first states the core action, second lists the filtering capabilities. No redundancy or unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the schema covers all parameters and annotations provide safety guarantees, the description is complete. It mentions return format (JSON), the query language, and key parameters. No obvious gaps.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the SoQL syntax convention (omit leading $), which clarifies how to use the string parameters effectively.

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 a Socrata SoQL query against a specific dataset by resource_id, with a concrete example. It distinguishes from siblings like 'datasets' which only retrieve dataset metadata.

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 provides explicit instructions on how to use SoQL clauses without leading $ and mentions limit/offset. There are no alternative query tools among siblings, but the description does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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

All Data Mesa 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants, polymarket research tools, visibility checks), despite detailed descriptions. An agent may struggle to choose between closely related options.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snake_case verb_noun patterns (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities) with noun-heavy compound names (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, deep_research) and single-word names (e.g., query, recall). No consistent convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the surface is heavy for a research/data server. Many tools are variants of core capabilities (ask_pipeworx, polymarket edges), suggesting consolidation would improve usability.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a broad range: data research, prediction markets, entity profiles, monitoring. However, the abundance of specialized variants and gaps in unified workflows (e.g., needing separate tools for simple vs grounded queries) reduce completeness.

Resources