Skip to main content
Glama

Data Tours

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Query

query
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query records from a Tours Métropole Open Data dataset with ODSQL. Filter (where), aggregate (group_by/select), sort (order_by), paginate (limit/offset).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax records (1-100, default 20).
queryNoFree-text keyword across all fields (optional).
whereNoODSQL filter, e.g. `year >= 2020 AND city = "Paris"` (overrides query).
offsetNoPagination offset (default 0).
selectNoODSQL select/aggregation, e.g. `count(*) as n, sum(amount)`.
group_byNoODSQL group_by field(s).
order_byNoSort, e.g. `date desc`.
dataset_idYesDataset id from search_datasets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "dataset_id": "tours-metro-bike-stations",
+    "limit": 20
+  },
+  {
+    "dataset_id": "tours-metro-bike-stations",
+    "limit": 10,
+    "order_by": "available_bikes desc",
+    "select": "count(*) as total_stations",
+    "where": "available_bikes > 0"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about ODSQL and query capabilities, but does not address rate limits, authentication, or error behavior.

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 one sentence with a clear list of operations. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite 8 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., JSON format, metadata) or how parameters interact (e.g., query vs where override). This is insufficient for a complex query tool.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description adds overall context about query operations but no additional parameter-specific details, meeting the baseline.

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 records from a specific open data dataset using ODSQL, and lists the main operations (filter, aggregate, sort, paginate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_datasets which find datasets rather than query records.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools such as search_datasets or suggest_questions.

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

All Data Tours toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are well-differentiated by their use cases and safety guarantees. The multiple polymarket tools each focus on a unique aspect (arbitrage, edge scanning, persistence, fill risk, cross-venue spreads), avoiding ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase with underscores, following a mostly verb_noun or domain_prefix_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity). A few names like dataset_info and ai_visibility_check deviate slightly from a strict verb_noun structure, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the server is on the heavier end of the well-scoped range. However, the count is justified by the breadth of functionality: data queries, prediction markets, entity resolution, memory, monitoring, and more. The tools each serve a specific purpose, and none feel redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of use cases including data retrieval, comparison, research, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for placing prediction market trades or creating/updating Tours Métropole datasets), but these are likely intentional scope choices. Core workflows are well-supported.

Resources