Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houston Open Data MCP

Houston Open Data MCP

by Sandysmile
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Search Houston datasets

houston_search_datasets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search City of Houston open datasets by keyword, department, or topic, then use returned dataset names to inspect details and retrieve records.

Instructions

Search City of Houston open datasets by keyword, department, or topic.

Start here. Each result's metadata_modified shows when its catalog entry last changed; update frequency varies by dataset. Results include harvested GIS datasets. Pass a result's name to houston_get_dataset.

Returns datasets with total, has_more, and next_offset, or an error with a hint.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "houston_search_datasets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupNoGroup `name` from houston_list_groups.
queryNoKeywords, such as 'council district'. Empty lists everything.
paginationNo
organizationNoOrganization `name` from houston_list_organizations.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description is not needed for safety. It still adds real value: that `metadata_modified` is the catalog-entry change time (not data freshness), that update frequency varies, and that harvested GIS datasets are included — a caveat an agent could easily get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then workflow, then caveats, then return shape — a sensible ordering with no filler. The middle sentence about metadata_modified is slightly dense but carries non-obvious information, so it earns its place.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations already present, the description covers the remaining agent-relevant ground: entry point, next step, pagination presence, and error hints. The one gap is implicit mapping of 'department'/'topic' to the group/organization parameters.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents group, query, pagination, and organization adequately. The description's 'keyword, department, or topic' loosely gestures at query/group/organization but never maps those words to the actual parameter names, and pagination is only implied via has_more/next_offset in the return shape.

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 verb+resource ('Search City of Houston open datasets') plus the axes searched (keyword, department, topic). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring itself the entry point ('Start here') and naming the follow-up tool houston_get_dataset.

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 explicit routing guidance: start here, then pass a result's `name` to houston_get_dataset, and 'Empty lists everything' for the no-keyword case. It stops short of stating when to prefer houston_list_groups or houston_list_organizations instead, but the workflow context is clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools