How big is the FMCSA carrier dataset right now? Headline aggregates: total and active registered carriers, how many have a SaferGrade score and the grade distribution, carriers with inspection/crash history, and the current national driver/vehicle out-of-service baseline rates. [price: $0.001/call]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it returns aggregate statistics (not individual records), lists the data categories included, and mentions the cost. It does not explicitly say it's read-only, but the nature of 'headline aggregates' implies no side effects. A slight gap is not stating whether it refreshes or is cached.
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?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence front-loaded with the core question, followed by a bullet list of outputs. Every phrase earns its place. The price note is a helpful addition without clutter.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It covers key aggregates a user would expect. However, it could briefly mention the output format (e.g., JSON object) or if pagination is needed, though for a stats endpoint this is likely fixed. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a zero-parameter stats tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the input. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is no additional information required or provided.
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 starts with a clear question 'How big is the FMCSA carrier dataset right now?' and lists specific headline aggregates (total/active carriers, SaferGrade distribution, inspection/crash history, out-of-service rates). It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual carrier details, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name 'stats' and sibling tools like 'fmcsa_carrier_search' imply it's for aggregate data, there is no direct guidance on when to choose this over other FMCSA tools or what conditions warrant its use.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.