Skip to main content
Glama

Data Nola

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Nola Query

nola_query
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a raw SoQL query against any New Orleans open-data resource (data.nola.gov) by its Socrata id (8-char like "4xwx-sfte"). Full SoQL: where/select/group/order/limit/offset. Use nola_datasets to find a resource id, or nola_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. "4xwx-sfte".

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it runs raw SQL-like queries, which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations imply, but no contradiction.

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-loading the core purpose and providing essential usage guidance without extraneous 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?

Given 8 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations indicating safety, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and usage. The lack of an output schema is acceptable as the tool returns raw query results. The description could mention pagination behavior, but overall it is complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the SoQL clauses that correspond to parameters but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions (e.g., 'SoQL $group'). The examples in the schema provide more context.

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 it runs raw SoQL queries against New Orleans open data, specifying the resource ID format and available SoQL clauses. It also distinguishes from sibling tools nola_datasets and nola_recent by directing users to those for finding resource 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use nola_datasets or nola_recent to find resource IDs before using this tool. It does not specify when not to use the tool, but the context of alternatives is clear.

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

All Data Nola 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 tool boundaries blur: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve overlapping query/research entry points, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx by the server's own description. entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also cover overlapping company-investigation territory, forcing agents to parse long descriptions to avoid mis-selection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a predictable verb-object or domain-prefix pattern (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, nola_*, subscribe/unsubscribe). Minor deviations like nola_datasets, polymarket_edges, and ai_visibility_check are noun-first rather than verb-first, but the overall convention is still readable and coherent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 15-25 heavy range and includes multiple near-duplicate query modes, four closely related Polymarket analysis tools, and memory/subscription utilities layered on top of the core data-access surface. While the server appears to be a broad data platform, the count is bloated for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably broad: discovery, single-answer lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, NOLA querying, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, and feedback are all covered with few obvious dead ends. The main gap is that the NOLA-specific surface is thin relative to the server name, though nola_query plus nola_datasets provides a flexible escape hatch.

Resources