Skip to main content
Glama

ukpolice

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Crimes

get_crimes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get street-level crimes reported near a latitude/longitude in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, from the official police open data. Returns each crime's category, street, month and outcome status, plus the month the figures are actually for. Answers "what crime was reported near " and "how much burglary is there around these coordinates". Omit date for the latest published month — the feed runs about two months in arrears, and a month that has not been published yet is reported as such rather than as an absence of crime.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYesLatitude of the location
lngYesLongitude of the location
dateNoMonth in YYYY-MM form, e.g. "2026-05". Omit for the latest published month. Data lags roughly two months; if the requested month is not published yet, the most recent available month is returned and labelled.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesTotal number of crimes returned
crimesYesArray of street-level crimes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / date / description
      Previous value: -"Month to query in YYYY-MM format (e.g. \"2024-01\"). Defaults to latest available."New value: +"Month in YYYY-MM form, e.g. \"2026-05\". Omit for the latest published month. Data lags roughly two months; if the requested month is not published yet, the most recent available month is returned and labelled."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Total number of crimes returned",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "crimes": {
+      "description": "Array of street-level crimes",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "category": {
+            "description": "Crime category",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Crime ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "month": {
+            "description": "Month of the crime in YYYY-MM format",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "outcome": {
+            "description": "Outcome category or 'Under investigation'",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "outcome_date": {
+            "description": "Date of outcome if available",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "street": {
+            "description": "Street name where crime occurred",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "category",
+          "month",
+          "street",
+          "outcome",
+          "outcome_date"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "count",
+    "crimes"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "lat": 51.5074,
+    "lng": -0.1278
+  },
+  {
+    "date": "2024-01",
+    "lat": 53.4808,
+    "lng": -2.2426
+  }
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the two-month data lag, the fact that unpublished months are reported as 'not yet published' rather than as zero crime, and that omitting date returns the latest published month. This is genuinely valuable operational disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose ('street-level crimes near a lat/lng'), followed by return value details and the date-behavior nuance. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more scannable with line breaks. The structure is functional for the amount of information conveyed.

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 tool has an output schema (reducing the need to explain return values), 100% schema coverage, and strong annotations. The description covers the key operational nuance (data lag and unpublished-month handling) which is the most important thing an agent needs to know. It's complete for a read-only query tool with a well-specified schema; a 5 would require even more edge-case handling or explicit error semantics.

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 all three parameters (lat, lng, date) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the lat/lng semantic (crimes near a location) and the date lag behavior, adding some value. However, most parameter explanation is duplicated in the schema, so the description mostly echoes rather than extends the schema. Baseline 3 with slight reinforcement is fair.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get street-level crimes reported near a latitude/longitude...from the official police open data') and clearly distinguishes the tool's scope (England/Wales/Northern Ireland, street-level crimes). It even provides example question phrasings ('what crime was reported near <place>') that help an agent map user intent to this tool versus siblings like get_outcomes or get_forces.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (when crime questions reference a place) through the example questions, and explains the date behavior (omit for latest month, feeds run two months behind). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the contextual usage guidance is solid.

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

All ukpolice 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all answer questions, and the five polymarket_* tools require careful reading to distinguish. The three UK police tools are clear, but they sit among many near-duplicate data-query and memory utilities.

Naming Consistency2/5

Mixed conventions: snake_case verb_noun (get_crimes) coexists with brand-style names (ask_pipeworx), noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage), and bare verbs (forget, recall). The polymarket_* and ask_pipeworx_* families are internally consistent, but the overall set lacks a single pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and only three relate to the server's stated ukpolice domain, while the rest form a general-purpose data platform. Many meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, memory) add bulk relative to the core purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the actual Pipeworx scope, coverage is strong: query, research, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all present. But for the ukpolice name, it is missing many UK police endpoints (neighborhoods, stop-and-search, etc.) and has no write/update operations, so the surface feels mismatched.

Resources