AtlasAdapt

Hazard profile for an address

assess_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Per-address climate hazard profile (flood, hurricane/wind, wildfire, heat, earthquake, power outage …) for the US, UK, Germany, France and Switzerland. Each hazard carries its rating and the public source it came from. A hazard that is absent was never modelled for that country — that is not a finding of low risk. For money (the yearly loss and what upgrades avoid), call estimate_plan.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "assess_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes
`country`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`hazards`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description wisely spends its words on semantics instead. The statement that an absent hazard means 'never modelled for that country — not a finding of low risk' is a genuinely important interpretive caveat an agent could otherwise get dangerously wrong. It adds no detail on error handling or partial coverage within a supported country.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope first, output shape second, the critical absent-hazard caveat third, sibling routing last. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists and the description correctly avoids re-documenting return values, while the hazard-source caveat covers the biggest interpretation risk. The gap is the input side: for a tool with 0% schema coverage and two parameters, the definition leaves the caller guessing about address formatting and the role of the country field.

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 carry the burden for address format and the country parameter — and it does not. It never says whether address is free-form or requires a prior resolve_address call, nor whether country is optional, inferred from the address, or case-insensitive (the enum accepts lowercase without explanation).

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?

States a specific resource (per-address climate hazard profile) and enumerates the hazard classes and covered countries, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling estimate_plan by naming that tool for monetary output.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for hazard ratings/sources, use estimate_plan for yearly loss and upgrade savings. That is a clear use-vs-alternative rule. It stops short of covering the other obvious case – what to do when the address is ambiguous or unnormalized (resolve_address).

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

All AtlasAdapt tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?