Govparse Government Data Gateway

trials_sites_search

Where are clinical trials being run, and by whom? Search ClinicalTrials.gov trial SITES by facility name, city, US state, lead sponsor company, trial phase, trial status, or trial start date (since). Returns each facility with its trial's sponsor, phase, status, and start date — a site / facility target list for trial-site services, patient-recruitment, and lab vendors. ClinicalTrials.gov public records. [price: $0.05/row]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	Site city fragment.
`sort`	No	start_date :asc\|:desc. Default start_date:desc.
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 25, cap 100).
`phase`	No	Trial phase(s), CSV (PHASE1 \| PHASE2 \| PHASE3 \| PHASE4).
`since`	No	Trial started on/after this date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`state`	No	Site US state code(s), CSV.
`offset`	No	Rows to skip.
`status`	No	Trial overall status, CSV (RECRUITING \| COMPLETED \| ...).
`sponsor`	No	Lead sponsor company — suffix/punctuation-insensitive.
`facility`	No	Facility / site name fragment.

Schema Changelog

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

AddedJul 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as a search returning facility data with trial details and mentions pricing, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it discuss rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit/offset.

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 three sentences and provides essential information. The opening question is slightly unnecessary for an AI agent but does not significantly add verbosity. It is well-structured with the core purpose first, then return fields, then use case and pricing.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (facility with sponsor, phase, status, start date) and the pricing model. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but the overall function and output are sufficiently described.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only lists some of the parameters (facility, city, state, sponsor, phase, status, since) without providing new context. Baseline 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 starts with a clear question and states the tool searches for clinical trial sites by facility, city, state, sponsor, phase, status, and start date. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling trials_trials_search by focusing on sites rather than trials. The intended use case (target list for vendors) is also mentioned.

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 the searchable fields and implies the tool is for finding sites for trial services. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like trials_trials_search, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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?