Skip to main content
Glama

Data Nashville

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Nashville Query

nashville_query
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query any Nashville ArcGIS layer by service path + layer id. Full ArcGIS query: where, out_fields, order_by, limit. Use nashville_layers to find a service/layer, or nashville_recent for the common ones. Epoch dates are converted to ISO.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layerYesLayer id within the service (from nashville_layers), e.g. 39.
limitNoMax rows (default 100, max 2000).
whereNoArcGIS SQL where (default "1=1").
serviceYesArcGIS service path, e.g. "hubNashville_311_Service_Requests_2025_view/FeatureServer" (or a short name: crime|service_requests|permits).
order_byNoSort clause, e.g. "Date_Time_Opened DESC".
out_fieldsNoComma-separated fields, or "*" (default).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing safety. The description adds value by noting that epoch dates are converted to ISO and implies full ArcGIS query capabilities. No contradictions with 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?

Three tightly composed sentences: the first immediately defines the action and resource, the second lists parameters, and the third gives usage guidance. No extraneous words, every sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, the description covers query syntax, service/layer identification, and date conversion. It could mention response format or limit defaults, but the schema covers limits and defaults, so overall adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds extra context: service can be a short name (crime|service_requests|permits) and epochs are handled. This provides meaning beyond the schema's documentation.

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?

Description clearly states 'Query any Nashville ArcGIS layer by service path + layer id' and enumerates the query parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing nashville_layers and nashville_recent as helpers. Purpose is specific and non-ambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool and how to find layers using nashville_layers or nashville_recent. Does not provide explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear: this tool queries specific layers after identification.

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

All Data Nashville 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in current behavior, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim, and deep_research all overlap with the same underlying routing. The six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) share domain and response fields, making misselection likely despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout and prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, nashville_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) are consistent within themselves. However, the overall set mixes verb-first names (ask, compare, remember, subscribe) with noun/adjective-first names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes, bet_research), so no single predictable pattern governs all tools.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server exceeds a coherent surface, especially for a server named 'Data Nashville' where only 3 of 34 tools actually serve Nashville data. The count is inflated by several largely unrelated feature families (AI visibility, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), making the set feel like an aggregation of multiple products rather than one focused server.

Completeness3/5

Individual families are fairly complete: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and Nashville has discovery/query/recent access. But the overall domain is unclear, and the Nashville-specific surface is thin (no search across datasets, no non-ArcGIS sources), leaving notable gaps relative to the server name.

Resources