Skip to main content
Glama

City facts

city_facts
Read-onlyIdempotent

What a city index's websites say, compared with every index of the same kind: the share of listed businesses with no web address, only a social profile or their own site; the share of sites that turn an AI crawler away, publish a readable menu, take bookings or orders directly or grade A or B; the share that declare an English version, show prices, link to WhatsApp, show an old copyright year or load a consent manager; the middle visible price and the page weight. Each with its base, rank and medians. Page: https://directindex.org/city/{slug}#sites and https://directindex.org/stats.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYesIndex slug, for example lisbon or berlin-cafes-bars; see list_cities
contextYesExplain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
llm_modelYesThe exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.
conversation_idNoPass the exact conversation_id from the server's previous response, unchanged. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it. Keep passing the same conversation_id for the rest of the conversation, including after later user messages or on a different task; do not reset it when the user starts a new request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral context that results are comparative ('compared with every index of the same kind') and enumerates the returned metric families, but says nothing about scope limits, pagination, or freshness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is one ~90-word run-on sentence built as a long metric list, with the actual purpose buried at the start in a relative clause and the URLs tacked on at the end. Nothing is front-loaded and the enumerated metrics are not grouped, making it hard to scan.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating the data it returns, and annotations cover safety. However, it omits that the call carries mandatory analytics/telemetry parameters and a stateful conversation_id handshake, which is unusual behavior an agent would benefit from being warned about up front.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all four parameters (city, context, llm_model, conversation_id) carry detailed schema descriptions, including the strict conversation_id contract. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description communicates the subject matter (website-level statistics for a city index, benchmarked against same-kind indices) but never states a clean verb+resource. There is no differentiation from siblings like city_leaderboard, compare_cities, or city_changes, which plausibly return overlapping comparative data, so an agent cannot disambiguate from this text alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite a crowded sibling set (compare_cities, city_leaderboard, country_summary). The two page URLs are appended without explaining what they are for, so the agent gets no routing signal.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources