Skip to main content
Glama
cenogram

cenogram-mcp-server

Official
by cenogram

get_infrastructure_signals

Read-only

Identify Polish municipalities planning infrastructure investments like sewerage, water supply, roads, or cycling paths by analyzing public procurement notices, wastewater program data, and multi-year financial forecasts.

Instructions

Signals that a Polish municipality is about to build infrastructure — sewerage, water supply, roads, street lighting, gas network or cycling infrastructure. Three independent public sources: tenders published in the national public procurement bulletin (rolling 12-month window), membership in an agglomeration of the national urban waste-water treatment programme (where collective sewerage exists or is planned), and the municipality's own planned capital expenditure from its multi-year financial forecast. Address by location (city/county name → aggregates every municipality in that county) OR teryt (6-7 digits = one municipality, 4 digits = a county aggregate). teryt wins when both are given. Use list_locations to find codes. Known limits, state them when you report results: the bulletin carries only contracts BELOW the EU procurement thresholds (from 2021), so the largest investments are not visible here. A tender is attributed to the SEAT of the contracting authority, not to the works location — county and national authorities tender works in other municipalities. The category counters therefore include municipal authorities only, while the recent-notice list shows every authority with a flag. Absence of tenders is NOT evidence that a municipality is not investing. Cost: 1 token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
terytNoTERYT code: 6 or 7 digits = one municipality (e.g. 146501), 4 digits = a county aggregate (e.g. 1465). Wins over location.
locationNoCity or county name (e.g. 'Warszawa', 'Krotoszyn'). Aggregates every municipality in the county. Use this OR teryt.
Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals critical behaviors beyond annotations: data sources, input precedence (terytr wins), cost (1 token), and known caveats (attribution to seat, thresholds, flag vs. counters). No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear main sentence, bulleted sources, and explanatory notes. It is slightly verbose but every part adds value; front-loading the purpose and key method is effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple sources, constraints, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: how to input, what data comes from, known limitations, and cost. An agent can use it correctly without gaps.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains how teryt and location work, that teryt wins when both given, and that location aggregates municipalities. It also directs to list_locations for codes, which is helpful context.

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 specifies the exact signals (infrastructure building in Polish municipalities from three public sources) and distinguishes the tool by detailing the input methods (location vs. teryt) and referencing sibling tool list_locations, making the purpose highly distinct.

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 explains when to use (to get infrastructure signals) and provides known limits (e.g., contracts below EU thresholds, attribution by seat, absence not evidence). However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools for when to choose this one over alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cenogram/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server