Skip to main content
Glama

Georgia Prisoners' Speak Public Data

Get contraband incidents

get_contraband_incidents
Read-onlyIdempotent

Incidents from GDC's own published contraband arrest reports (2010-present, ~1,600 incidents, including reports that survive only in the Internet Archive; page: gps.press/contraband-data/): one row per incident with GDC's wording verbatim, the people as GDC categorised them (staff / officer / contract staff / visitor / civilian), the items, whether an arrest was reported, and the GDC source URL. Filters: facility slug (e.g. dooly-state-prison), year, actor_category (staff | visitor | civilian | officer | gdc_staff | contract_staff), item_category (cellphone, tobacco, marijuana, methamphetamine, ...), arrest_made (yes|no|unstated), q (text match). Structured rows name staff, officers and contract staff as GDC printed them; other people appear by category and role only. The narrative is GDC's own text. Rows are long (a few thousand characters each): per_page defaults to 5 and is capped at 20; use page to continue and the filters to narrow. total is the number of matches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNo
pageNo
yearNo
facilityNo
per_pageNo
arrest_madeNo
item_categoryNo
actor_categoryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
      Previous value: -25New value: +5
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: rows are a few thousand characters each, per_page defaults to 5 and is capped at 20, and `total` is the count of matches. It also discloses data-shaping behavior (verbatim GDC wording, PII handling for staff vs other actors).

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?

Dense but front-loaded, opening with what the tool returns and its provenance before filters and pagination. Every clause carries information, though the run-on filter and PII exposition sentences could be tightened slightly.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains row shape (long narrative rows, verbatim wording), the naming convention for structured actors, the total count, and pagination limits — enough for an agent to consume results correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage across 8 params, the description fully compensates: facility slug with example, year, actor_category with valid values, item_category with examples, arrest_made (yes|no|unstated), q as text match, plus page/per_page semantics. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is left undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource (contraband incidents from GDC's published arrest reports), the row granularity, the date span, and the exact provenance including Internet Archive survivors. An agent can distinguish this from get_contraband_summary and the other siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: use filters to narrow, use `page` to continue, and implies the tool is for enumerating individual incidents. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_contraband_summary over this tool, which is the main missing routing cue.

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