querySoQL query on a single resource.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| where | No | SoQL WHERE clause (without "WHERE"). | |
| offset | No | ||
| select | No | ||
| resource_id | Yes | Socrata 4x4, e.g. "xj2p-gjci" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Array of rows returned from SoQL query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 100,
+ "resource_id": "xj2p-gjci",
+ "where": "year = 2023"
+ },
+ {
+ "group": "complaint_type",
+ "limit": 50,
+ "order": "total DESC",
+ "resource_id": "8n3z-qvya",
+ "select": "complaint_type, count(*) as total"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of items returned.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Array of rows returned from SoQL query",
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Row object with column values",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond these annotations, such as pagination behavior, result size, or rate limits, so it fails to disclose any extra traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short phrase, front-loaded and concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being almost terse. It does not waste words, but it also does not provide enough structural content to be highly rated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description should provide more context on how to construct queries or what is returned. The single sentence only states the tool's purpose, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly, especially given low schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 29%, with only 'where' and 'resource_id' described. The description does not compensate for the other five parameters (select, group, order, limit, offset), and 'SoQL query' provides no syntax or semantics for these fields, leaving the agent without parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SoQL query on a single resource' identifies the verb (query), resource (single resource), and query language (SoQL). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_within' or 'column_data', so it does not fully earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim have overlapping functionality in answering factual questions. The detailed descriptions help differentiate them, though some confusion may still arise.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity). No mixing of camelCase or other styles, making the naming predictable and uniform.
34 tools is on the higher side, but many are meta-tools (discover, feedback, subscriptions) and some are redundant (ask_pipeworx vs grounded). While the scope is broad, the count could be trimmed for tighter focus.
The server covers a wide range of domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets, etc.) with strong read and analysis capabilities. Missing update/delete operations and direct trading, but comprehensive for data retrieval and analysis.