Skip to main content
Glama

Data Rennes

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Query

query
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query records from a Rennes Métropole Open Data dataset with ODSQL. Filter (where), aggregate (group_by/select), sort (order_by), paginate (limit/offset).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax records (1-100, default 20).
queryNoFree-text keyword across all fields (optional).
whereNoODSQL filter, e.g. `year >= 2020 AND city = "Paris"` (overrides query).
offsetNoPagination offset (default 0).
selectNoODSQL select/aggregation, e.g. `count(*) as n, sum(amount)`.
group_byNoODSQL group_by field(s).
order_byNoSort, e.g. `date desc`.
dataset_idYesDataset id from search_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: +[
+  {
+    "dataset_id": "bike-stations-rennes",
+    "limit": 20
+  },
+  {
+    "dataset_id": "traffic-incidents",
+    "limit": 50,
+    "order_by": "date desc",
+    "where": "year >= 2023"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's mention of 'Query' and 'ODSQL' aligns with these annotations but adds minimal additional behavioral context beyond what is already conveyed by the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and lists its core operations without any fluff. Every word adds value.

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?

The description fully explains the tool's functionality given the rich schema and annotations, but it omits the output format (e.g., JSON). Since there is no output schema, mentioning the return type would improve completeness.

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 the schema itself documents each parameter. The description provides a high-level overview of parameter roles (e.g., 'Filter (where)') but does not add detailed syntax or constraints beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'records from a Rennes Métropole Open Data dataset', and specifies the query language (ODSQL). It lists core operations (filter, aggregate, sort, paginate) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_datasets (which finds datasets) and search_within.

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 specifies when to use the tool: to query records with ODSQL capabilities. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternative sibling tools for different use cases, slightly reducing the score.

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

All Data Rennes 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and several prediction market analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.). While descriptions attempt to differentiate, an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a mix of verb-initial (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities) and noun-phrase patterns (entity_profile, dataset_info), with no consistent verb_noun structure. Naming is readable but lacks a predictable pattern.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The broad scope (data querying, prediction markets, company research, local open data) somewhat justifies the count, but several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the various polymarket tools).

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data querying, company research, prediction market analysis, and memory management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no user authentication tools beyond subscriptions), but the surface is largely comprehensive for its intended purpose.

Resources