Skip to main content
Glama

DaedalMap Disaster and Geospatial Data

by com.daedalmap

Get Live Volcano Events

get_live_volcano_events
Read-only

Free live wrapper. Calls the Smithsonian/GVP WFS for recent preliminary volcanic eruption updates normalized to DaedalMap event fields. This is not the enriched canonical history lane.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoRecent lookback window in days. Ignored when start_time is provided.
limitNoMaximum live rows to return.
min_veiNoOptional minimum Volcanic Explosivity Index.
orderbyNoResult ordering.
end_timeNoOptional inclusive ISO-8601 end datetime or date. Defaults to now.
request_idNoOptional caller-supplied request id for tracing.
start_timeNoOptional inclusive ISO-8601 start datetime or date.
ongoing_onlyNoWhen true, only return eruptions marked continuing by GVP.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it calls an external WFS service, returns preliminary data, and is not canonical. This provides extra behavioral context beyond annotations.

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: the first explains the action and source, the second clarifies its scope. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words.

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?

The description explains the data source and nature (live, preliminary) but does not describe the returned fields or structure. With no output schema and 8 optional parameters, more detail on the response would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a live wrapper for volcanic eruption updates from the Smithsonian/GVP WFS, specified to be preliminary and not the enriched canonical history lane. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_volcanic_activity.

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 this is for live, preliminary data by stating it's a 'free live wrapper' and 'not the enriched canonical history lane,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All DaedalMap Disaster and Geospatial Data 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct scopes with detailed 'Use this' guidance, but a few pairs like get_disaster_link_chain and get_disaster_links_for_event, or query_dataset versus the specialized get_* event tools, could cause momentary confusion. Overall, descriptions mitigate overlap well.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_, compare_, convert_, create_, estimate_, get_, list_, resolve_). Minor exceptions like loc_id_info and query_dataset are acceptable but break the pattern slightly.

Tool Count3/5

28 tools exceed the preferred range, but the broad domain spanning disasters, geospatial geometry, reference conversion, and export jobs justifies many of them. Still, the count feels heavy and might overwhelm agents.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive: discovery (catalog, pack, geometry catalog), resolution (point, reference, scope), geometry (check, get, compare), conversion (quote, create, status), and disaster events for multiple types. No critical dead ends for the stated domain.

Resources