search_siteSearch gps.press — articles, data pages, research library topics and facility pages — and get back ranked titles, URLs and summaries.
This reads the public /find/ results page. GPS publishes no JSON search API, so results are parsed out of the rendered page; treat the ranking as the site's own and follow each result's URL before citing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool parses the public /find/ results page because GPS publishes no JSON search API, that ranking reflects the site's own ordering, and that citations should be verified by following result URLs. This gives the agent important behavioral context not encoded in readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, scope, and return type. The second sentence adds essential behavioral caveats about the scraping mechanism and citation workflow. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, source, output format, and a critical behavioral caveat (parsed HTML, no API). It lacks explicit explanation of the 'limit' parameter and does not mention error or edge-case behavior, but for a simple 2-parameter search tool with rich output and behavioral context, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for explaining parameters. It implies 'query' is the search term through the verb 'Search', but it never explains the 'limit' parameter, its default behavior, or any constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds almost no explicit semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Search'), a concrete resource ('gps.press'), the scope of content ('articles, data pages, research library topics and facility pages'), and the output ('ranked titles, URLs and summaries'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_quotes by focusing on site-wide search rather than a dedicated quotes search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when the tool is appropriate: when you need to search the public gps.press site across multiple content types. It also implies a caveat for using results (follow each result's URL before citing). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the domain scope is implicit enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.