Skip to main content
Glama

Nyc Parks

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Events

events
Read-onlyIdempotent

Upcoming NYC Parks events (next ~14 days): free/low-cost outdoor, fitness, nature, kids and recreation-center programming. Filter by date window, category (e.g. "Best for Kids", "Sports", "Nature", "Fitness"), and keyword (title/park/location/description).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoLatest event date YYYY-MM-DD (default: no upper bound within the 14-day feed).
fromNoEarliest event date YYYY-MM-DD (default: today).
limitNoMax events to return (1-300, default 50).
queryNoKeyword over title, park name, location, and description.
categoryNoFilter by a category keyword, e.g. "Best for Kids", "Sports", "Nature", "Fitness", "Free". Discover via the categories tool.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds useful context about the 14-day rolling window and the nature of the events (free/low-cost, programming types), which helps set expectations beyond the raw schema.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes either the resource scope or the available filters.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential context: time window, content focus, and filter options. Annotations cover safety, schema covers parameters, and no output schema exists. It doesn't explicitly describe return structure, but list results are self-evident for an events listing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's filter summary (date window, category, keyword) mostly restates what the schema already documents, and the keyword field mapping matches schema descriptions. The only added value is directing users to the categories tool for category values, which is a small extra.

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 identifies the resource as 'Upcoming NYC Parks events' with a specific time scope (next ~14 days) and content types (outdoor, fitness, nature, kids, recreation-center). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from any siblings that focus on other data domains.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever NYC Parks events are needed, with filtering options for date, category, and keyword. It also points to the 'categories' tool for discovering category values, which is an explicit alternative/helper reference. No exclusions are needed since there is no competing events tool.

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

All Nyc Parks 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

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are functionally near-identical to an agent (the beta is explicitly described as currently identical to stable), and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping concerns around finding and validating prediction-market edges. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries require careful reading to pick correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case and mostly follow a verb-first or noun-phrase convention, with recognizable family prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) that aid navigation. Minor deviations exist — bare nouns like categories and events, and the inconsistent verb placement in bet_research vs. validate_claim — but the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is already heavy, but the fatal problem is that the server is named 'Nyc Parks' while ~31 of 33 tools are a generic Pipeworx data-retrieval/prediction-market toolkit. The count is egregiously mismatched to the stated purpose; only 2 tools relate to NYC Parks at all.

Completeness2/5

For the server's literal name, the surface is severely incomplete: categories and events exist, but there is no way to look up parks, facilities, permits, or event details, and no CRUD-lifecycle coverage. Viewed as a Pipeworx data toolkit the surface is quite thorough, but that is not what the server claims to be, so the stated NYC Parks domain is barely covered and creates dead ends.

Resources