Govparse Government Data Gateway

msha_violations_search

Which mine operators have MSHA citations or orders? Search the MSHA Violations data set (citations & orders at coal & M/NM mines) by cited company, mine id, state, cited 30 CFR standard (part_section), Mine Act section, citation/order type, health/safety area, negligence, likelihood, S&S (sig_sub), contested, year, or issue date (since). Returns the cited violator (entity-resolved), mine, standard cited, penalty, and dates. Reported exactly as cited, not a safety judgment. [price: $0.05/row]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	issue_date \| penalty \| affected :asc\|:desc. Default issue_date:desc.
`year`	No	Calendar year of issuance.
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 25, cap 100).
`since`	No	Issued on/after this date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`state`	No	State code(s), CSV (from the mine).
`offset`	No	Rows to skip.
`cit_ord`	No	Citation \| Order \| Safeguard (CSV).
`company`	No	Cited violator (operator/contractor) name — suffix/punctuation-insensitive.
`mine_id`	No	MSHA mine id(s), CSV.
`sig_sub`	No	true = Significant & Substantial (S&S) citations only.
`contested`	No	true = contested citations only.
`entity_id`	No	Resolved violator entity UUID.
`coal_metal`	No	C = coal, M = metal/non-metal.
`likelihood`	No	Accident likelihood (Highly \| Reasonably \| Unlikely \| Occurred \| NoLikelihood), CSV.
`negligence`	No	Negligence degree (CSV).
`violator_id`	No	MSHA violator/operator id(s), CSV.
`part_section`	No	Cited 30 CFR part/section fragment (the standard cited).
`violator_type`	No	Operator \| Contractor \| Agent \| Miner (CSV).
`section_of_act`	No	Mine Act section fragment.
`enforcement_area`	No	Health/safety hazard designation fragment.

Schema Changelog

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

AddedJul 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description mentions the data is 'reported exactly as cited' and includes pricing, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential rate limits. In absence of annotations, more explicit behavioral information would be beneficial.

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 concise, front-loaded with a question, and uses about three sentences to cover purpose, filters, and return fields efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for a search tool: it states what the dataset is, filter options, and return fields. With no output schema, it adequately describes the output.

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?

All 20 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond listing them. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: searching MSHA violations by various criteria. It starts with a question and specifies the dataset, filters, and return fields, making it distinct from sibling tools like msha_mines_search.

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 lists many filter parameters and indicates what is returned, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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?