Skip to main content
Glama
cyntrica

Gov Data MCP

by cyntrica

fbi_hate_crime

Read-only

Retrieve FBI hate crime statistics at national, state, or agency level. Break down incidents by bias, offense type, victim and offender demographics, and location.

Instructions

Get hate crime data from the FBI at national, state, or agency level. Returns incidents broken down by bias category (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.), offense type, victim type, offender demographics, and location type. Optionally filter by bias code (e.g., '12'=Anti-Black, '14'=Anti-Jewish, '22'=Anti-Islamic, '41'=Anti-Gay).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
oriNoAgency ORI code for agency-level data
biasNoBias code filter: '11' (Anti-White), '12' (Anti-Black or African American), '13' (Anti-American Indian or Alaska Native), '14' (Anti-Asian), '15' (Anti-Multiple Races, Group), '16' (Anti-Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander), ... (35 total)
typeNoData type
stateNoTwo-letter state abbreviation for state-level data
to_yearNoEnd year
from_yearNoStart year
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the returned breakdowns and optional bias filter. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as default behavior when no parameters are supplied, how the level (national/state/agency) is selected, or potential limitations like pagination or time ranges. The added value over annotations is modest.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function and scope, the second adds useful detail about the return structure and optional filter. No filler or redundant information is present, and the examples of bias codes are concise and helpful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a moderately complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned data dimensions but leaves important usage details unexplained, such as how to specify the national/state/agency level (which parameters control it) and what the 'type' parameter means. While the schema covers parameter names, the description does not fully compensate for the absence of an output schema or clarify the behavior when no filters are provided.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds meaningful examples for the bias parameter (e.g., '12'=Anti-Black) and mentions the level options, but it does not clarify ambiguous parameters like type ('counts' vs 'totals'), which remains under-specified in both the schema and the description.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('hate crime data from the FBI'), and distinguishes it from sibling FBI tools by focusing solely on hate crime statistics. It also specifies the levels (national, state, agency) and the breakdown dimensions, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (when hate crime data is needed) and the available levels, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools like fbi_crime_summarized or fbi_nibrs, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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/cyntrica/gov-data-mcp'

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