Skip to main content
Glama

Govparse Government Data Gateway

by io.govparse

fmcsa_feed_carriers

What does the full FMCSA carrier census look like, carrier by carrier, with authority and safety context attached? Bulk analytics feed in USDOT order: legal/DBA name, operating status, authority statuses on file, active insurance filings, safety rating, SaferGrade score, 24-month SMS inspection/out-of-service/crash summaries, fleet size, and address — flat rows, cursor-paginated up to 1000/page, filterable by state, minimum fleet size, or census add date. [price: $0.05/row]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRows per page (default 500, cap 1000).
stateNoPhysical-address state code(s), CSV.
cursorNoOpaque page cursor — pass the previous page's next_cursor unchanged.
added_sinceNoOnly carriers added to the census on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD) — the census carries no per-record modified date.
min_power_unitsNoMinimum fleet size (power units).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses cursor-based pagination, row limit, filtering capabilities, and pricing per row. It does not mention rate limits, default parameters, or error handling, but for a read-only feed tool, the disclosed behaviors are adequate. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, data fields, pagination, and filters. It is front-loaded with a question that clarifies intent. However, the list of fields is somewhat lengthy within the sentence, reducing scanability slightly.

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 5 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned, pagination method, filters, and pricing. It lacks explicit mention of default row count (500 from schema) and error behavior, but these are minor gaps for a well-described feed tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the cursor's opaque nature, the meaning of added_since date field, and the cap of 1000 rows per page. It reinforces the filtering options with context relevant to the data feed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool provides the full FMCSA carrier census with authority and safety context, listing the types of data included. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'bulk analytics feed' and cursor-pagination for large-scale retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar FMCSA tools like fmcsa_carrier_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for bulk analytics and enumerates filtering options, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide context about alternatives among the FMCSA sibling tools.

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

All Govparse Government Data Gateway 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain and specific action (e.g., FDA approvals vs clearances vs recalls; firmstanding business360 dossier vs search vs screen). Even overlapping concepts like 'business360' vs 'business360_lookup' are distinguished by input (UUID vs name+state). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern with domain prefix (e.g., fda_*, firmstanding_*, fmcsa_*, govcon_*). Action words (search, lookup, screen, feed, stats) follow predictable usage. The naming is uniform and easy to parse.

Tool Count4/5

38 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a comprehensive government data gateway spanning multiple agencies and datasets. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (e.g., FMCSA: 7, OFLC: 6). Could potentially be trimmed slightly, but overall well-scoped for the stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the major government data sources comprehensively: FDA (approvals, clearances, recalls), FMCSA (carrier census, safety, insurance, etc.), FSIS, DOJ/OFLC, OSHA/EPA/DOL enforcement, SEC insider filings, clinical trials, VA facilities/opportunities/vendors, and federal contracting. No obvious gaps for the stated gateway purpose.

Resources