socrata-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: search_datasets for discovery, get_dataset for metadata, profile_dataset for column profiling, query for flexible querying, sample for quick peeks, and export_csv for bulk download. No functional overlap.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (export_csv, get_dataset, profile_dataset, search_datasets). 'query' and 'sample' are single verbs but remain clear and consistent with the style; minor deviation from the full pattern.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is well-scoped for a read-only Socrata data exploration server. Each tool addresses a distinct need without bloat, and the count feels appropriate for the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of data exploration: search for datasets, inspect metadata, profile columns, query data, sample rows, and export. No obvious gaps for the intended purpose of querying and exporting open data.
Average 4.4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 40 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses details: streamed/paged download, writes to out_path, parent directories created, max_rows safety cap (default 1M), and point/location serialization as JSON strings. The return value structure is also described, providing complete behavioral transparency.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose and is fairly concise. The Args section is a bit verbose but still functional. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter list could be more succinct by relying on the schema.
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?
Given the complexity (12 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and return structure. It references another tool for query parameters, which is acceptable but requires the agent to understand `query`. Overall, it is complete enough for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters and refers to `query` for most, but provides no individual descriptions or syntax beyond examples (e.g., domain and dataset_id examples). This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter meanings without prior knowledge.
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 states the tool exports query results to a Tableau-ready CSV via streamed download, distinguishing it from sibling tools like `query` which likely returns JSON. It specifies the output is a file and mentions chaining into vizforge.
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 indicates that the tool accepts the same query parameters as `query` and is designed for chaining into `csv_to_dashboard`, which provides context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though the sibling list and purpose imply differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: computation method (aggregate SoQL), which columns get min/max/avg, and that low-cardinality text gets top 10 values. It also describes return structure.
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 separate paragraphs for purpose, notes, args, and returns, but it is slightly verbose. However, every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but noted), the description adequately details what is returned (row_count, columns array with field details). It covers key behaviors 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides all parameter meaning. It clearly defines both parameters with examples (domain hostname and Socrata 4x4 id), adding context beyond the schema type and title.
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 explicitly states the tool profiles every column with null rate, distinct count, min/max, and top values, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like query or export_csv by noting it uses aggregate SoQL and never downloads the dataset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for data profiling but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. It lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs.
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 well-structured with a clear first-line summary, followed by an Args list with parameter names and descriptions, and a Returns section. Every sentence is informative and no unnecessary words. It is concise yet comprehensive.
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 5 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters with examples, and the return format including hints for further use with sibling tools. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?
The schema has 0% coverage (only titles and types), but the description provides detailed semantics for all parameters: e.g., 'Full-text search, e.g. 'crime reports'', 'Restrict to one portal, e.g. 'data.seattle.gov''. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, helping the agent understand how to use each parameter.
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 states 'Search open-data catalogs for datasets (Socrata Discovery API)', specifying the verb 'search', resource 'datasets', and the API used. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like export_csv, get_dataset, etc., which have different purposes.
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 the tool (to search datasets) and provides guidance: 'Use each result's domain + id with the other tools.' It does not explicitly exclude alternative uses, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, description discloses key behaviors: max rows, ordering, return shape, and that result is not a random sample. Lacks mention of read-only nature, but fetch implies it.
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?
Single-line summary, structured Args and Returns sections, no redundant information. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Covers main concerns for a simple fetch tool: parameter details, return shape, ordering, cap. Sibling tool differentiation absent but not critical for completeness here.
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?
Each parameter is explained with examples and constraints (domain format, dataset id format, default/max for n), fully compensating for 0% schema description coverage.
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?
Clearly states verb 'fetch', resource 'first n rows of a dataset', and constraint 'capped at 100'. Distinguishes from random sample by noting rows are in id order.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for a quick peek via return description, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'query' or 'get_dataset'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure truthfully, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. It could mention authentication requirements, but the omission is acceptable for a simple metadata tool.
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 front-loaded with a concise summary, then structured into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; no tautology or verbosity.
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 output schema exists, the description still elaborates return fields and ties them to sibling tools ('Use columns field_name values in query/profile calls'). This fully informs the agent of the tool's role within the suite.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: it gives concrete examples for both domain and dataset_id, explains their format, and provides full context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
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 states 'Dataset metadata: columns with types, row count, update cadence, license,' specifying the verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on metadata retrieval, not exporting, profiling, querying, sampling, or searching.
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 parameter examples and notes to use column field_names in query/profile calls, guiding usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings, though context is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses truncation behavior, default ordering for stable paging, mutual exclusivity of soql and structured params, hard cap on limit, and return format. This is comprehensive for behavioral transparency.
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 fairly long but well-structured: intro, two modes, parameter list, return format. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but justified due to 11 parameters.
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 11 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers input and output comprehensively. It explains pagination, truncation, default ordering, and mutual exclusion, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to use the tool 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%, but the description provides detailed explanations and examples for each parameter (e.g., domain with example domain, select with example expressions). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property titles, fully compensating for lack of schema descriptions.
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 states the tool queries a dataset using either structured SoQL parameters or a raw SoQL string. It specifies the verb 'Query' and the resource 'dataset', and distinguishes two modes. This is specific and helpful.
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 recommends structured mode and explains when to use raw mode. It also suggests using export_csv for bulk extraction when truncated. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like sample or get_dataset, which would provide clearer usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![socrata-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jcscocca/socrata-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jcscocca/socrata-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![socrata-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jcscocca/socrata-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jcscocca/socrata-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/jcscocca/socrata-mcp'

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