Govparse Government Data Gateway

fsis_establishments_search

Which meat, poultry, or egg plants operate in a market? Search the USDA FSIS Meat, Poultry & Egg Product Inspection Directory (every federally-inspected establishment) by company, state, city, activity (slaughter/processing), species, size, or inspection-grant date (since, for new plants). Returns the establishment (entity-resolved where possible), address, activities, and size — a food-safety seller's entire target universe, not just OSHA-hit plants. FSIS public-domain records. [price: $0.05/row]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	City fragment.
`size`	No	Very Small \| Small \| Large (CSV).
`sort`	No	grant_date \| establishment_name :asc\|:desc. Default grant_date:desc.
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 25, cap 100).
`since`	No	Inspection grant date on/after this date (YYYY-MM-DD) — surfaces newly-granted plants.
`state`	No	State code(s), CSV.
`offset`	No	Rows to skip.
`company`	No	Establishment/company name — suffix/punctuation-insensitive.
`species`	No	meat \| poultry \| egg (CSV).
`activity`	No	Activity fragment (Slaughter, Processing, Egg Product, ...).
`entity_id`	No	Resolved employer entity UUID (pivots to business360).
`slaughter`	No	true = slaughter establishments only.
`processing`	No	true = processing establishments only.
`establishment_number`	No	FSIS establishment number(s), CSV (M=meat, P=poultry, G=egg, I=import).

Schema Changelog

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

AddedJul 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: returns entity-resolved establishments with address, activities, size; mentions price ($0.05/row); and states it's from FSIS public-domain records. It does not cover rate limits or modify behavior, but the read-only nature is implied.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, return values, and source/price. Front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.

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 14 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, return fields, and data source. It lacks explicit pagination details but is sufficient for a search tool. Could mention default sort or limit behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes searchable fields but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for individual parameters.

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 states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'USDA FSIS Meat, Poultry & Egg Product Inspection Directory' with specific searchable fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fsis_recalls_search by focusing on establishments rather than recalls.

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 provides context on when to use ('which plants operate in a market') and contrasts with 'not just OSHA-hit plants', implicitly guiding the agent away from more specialized search tools. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or when not to use.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?