get_agencyFetch a single agency record by ORI. Resolved by listing the agencies for the ORI's state and filtering — the dedicated by-ORI endpoint was retired mid-2026.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ori | Yes | 9-character ORI (e.g., "CA0194200" = LAPD). First two chars are the state code. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ori | Yes | 9-character ORI identifier | |
| data | Yes | Raw FBI CDE agency record |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / ori / descriptionPrevious value: -"9-character ORI (e.g., \"CA0194200\" = LAPD)"New value: +"9-character ORI (e.g., \"CA0194200\" = LAPD). First two chars are the state code."Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "ori": "CA0194200"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Raw FBI CDE agency record",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "ori": {
+ "description": "9-character ORI identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ori",
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by revealing the internal implementation (listing and filtering) which affects performance and behavior, thus providing transparency beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no wasted words. The second sentence provides useful implementation detail without being verbose.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the core action and the resolution method. Minor omission: no explicit mention of error handling (e.g., when ORI not found), but likely covered by output schema.
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 coverage is 100% and already describes the 'ori' parameter with an example and state code note. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('single agency record') with the specific identifier ('by ORI'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_agencies' which retrieve multiple agencies.
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?
The description indicates when to use (fetching a single agency by ORI) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use alternatives. However, the mention of the retired endpoint and the resolution method gives context about limitations.
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.