Skip to main content
Glama

Property Hazard MCP

Server Details

Flood, wildfire, earthquake, and coastal-storm hazard lookup for a US property.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
ericshenus/us-property-hazard-risk
GitHub Stars
0
Server Listing
us-property-hazard-risk

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.5/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion with other tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming consistency is not applicable, but the name clearly follows a verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count3/5

A single tool feels thin for a property hazard assessment domain; users might expect additional tools for batch processing or detailed breakdowns.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers major hazard types (flood, wildfire, seismic, fault, coastal) and returns a composite score, which is reasonably complete for a single-address assessment, though it lacks batch or historical capabilities.

Available Tools

1 tool
assess_property_hazardAssess Property Hazard RiskA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Assess natural hazard exposure for a single US property address.

Validates and geocodes the address (US Census Bureau geocoder), then looks up FEMA flood zone, wildfire hazard, USGS seismic PGA, active fault proximity, and coastal proximity. Returns a location-only hazard score (0-100) and tier. US addresses only; no building characteristics required.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
latNoLatitude of the matched address
lngNoLongitude of the matched address
sfhaNoWhether the address is in a Special Flood Hazard Area
messageNoExplanation of why validation failed, if it did
validatedYesWhether the address was successfully validated/geocoded
flood_zoneNoFEMA flood zone code (e.g. AE, X, VE); null if unavailable
hazard_tierNoHazard tier label: Low, Moderate, High, or Very High
seismic_pgaNoUSGS peak ground acceleration in g (ASCE 7-22)
hazard_scoreNoDeterministic location-only hazard score, 0-100
input_addressYesThe address as provided by the caller
hazard_driversNoUp to 5 human-readable factors driving the score
wildfire_scoreNoCoarse wildfire hazard tier, 0 (none) to 4 (very high)
flood_availableNoWhether the FEMA flood zone lookup succeeded
matched_addressNoNormalized address returned by the geocoder
fault_distance_milesNoDistance to the nearest known active fault, in miles
coastal_distance_milesNoDistance to the nearest coastline, in miles
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals the validation and geocoding step using US Census Bureau geocoder, and the specific hazard data sources. It also notes the output is a hazard score (0-100) and tier. It does not mention error handling or rate limits.

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 two sentences with front-loaded purpose. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second adds process details and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple input (one address string) and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the tool's functionality, data sources, constraints, and output format (score and tier). No further context is needed 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.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter 'address' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the address is validated and geocoded, and that only US addresses are accepted. It does not provide format examples, but adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 assesses natural hazard exposure for a single US property address, using a specific verb-resource pairing. It specifies the exact hazards considered (FEMA flood, wildfire, seismic, fault, coastal) and constraints (US only, single address). With no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.

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 tells when to use the tool: for a single US property address without building characteristics. It implicitly excludes non-US addresses and multi-property or detailed building analysis. However, it lacks explicit when-not or alternative tools, though no siblings exist.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.