Georgia Prisoners' Speak Public Data

Get mortality data

get_mortality_data

Read-onlyIdempotent

Deaths in GDC custody since 2020 — yearly and monthly counts, cause-of- death breakdown, deaths by facility, facility type, security level and age.

With no arguments this returns the whole published document plus a list of
its sections. `section` returns one section by name (e.g. 'YEARLY
STATISTICS', 'DEATHS BY FACILITY'); `year` filters the yearly and monthly
lines to that year; `facility_contains` filters the by-facility ranking AND returns that facility's cause-of-death breakdown.
Filters are matched against the published lines, which is why the matching
lines are returned verbatim rather than re-tabulated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	No
`section`	No
`facility_contains`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the no-argument return (whole document plus section list), how filters are matched against published lines, and why results are returned verbatim rather than re-tabulated. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the readOnly/idempotent hints do not cover.

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 densely informative with no wasted sentences: overview first, then behavior with no args, then each parameter with its unique effect. The line about verbatim matching justifies an otherwise surprising behavior, earning its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return behavior (whole document, sections, verbatim filtered lines) and data coverage. It covers all incoming parameters and the no-argument case, leaving no major gaps for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the burden of parameter documentation. It explains each of the three parameters ('section returns one section by name', 'year filters the yearly and monthly lines', 'facility_contains filters by-facility ranking AND returns cause-of-death breakdown') and gives concrete examples of valid section names.

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 identifies the tool's verb and resource: 'Deaths in GDC custody since 2020' plus the data dimensions (yearly/monthly counts, cause-of-death breakdown, facility, facility type, security level, age). This precise scope distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other domains like contraband, population, or parole.

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 strong guidance on how to use the tool, including the no-argument case, section selection, year filtering, and facility_contains behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the specific topic and param explanations make appropriate usage clear enough for an agent.

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

All Georgia Prisoners' Speak Public Data 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool names a distinct resource or action: contraband incidents vs summaries, a single facility vs facility list vs staff roster, and site-wide search vs quote search. The few close pairs are complementary rather than duplicative, and descriptions explicitly indicate when to use each.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, search_*). The one outlier, get_gps_guide, still fits the get_<resource> convention, so there is no real style clash.

Tool Count4/5

At 18 tools the server is heavier than a minimal CRUD surface, but it covers a broad public-data domain with a distinct endpoint per dataset or site function. The count feels slightly over the typical sweet spot rather than bloated or redundant.

Completeness4/5

The major GPS data domains are represented: facilities, population, mortality, contraband, parole, length of stay, settlements, and legal text. A few potentially relevant datasets (e.g., a structured budget tool) are not exposed directly, but search_site plus get_page cover most of those gaps.

Resources

Need Help?