get_packFree discovery. Returns detailed metadata, coverage, freshness, preferred canonical tool guidance, and first-query examples for one pack. Call this before querying a new pack so you can see time shape, coverage limits, and the paste-ready first query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pack_id | Yes | Pack identifier from get_catalog. Newly catalog-admitted packs require no MCP schema change. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true, the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds context about being a 'free discovery' and lists the returned data types, but doesn't disclose potential error behavior, rate limits, or limitations beyond what annotations imply. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with front-loaded purpose. Slight redundancy ('coverage' in both sentences), but every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what to expect (metadata, examples, guidance) and when to use it. The absence of an output schema is offset by the listed return categories, making it complete for practical invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes pack_id as a 'Pack identifier from get_catalog' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general instruction to call before querying, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schema parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns metadata, coverage, freshness, canonical tool guidance, and first-query examples for a single pack. It distinguishes itself from query tools by instructing to call it before querying a new pack, and its resource ('one pack') contrasts with siblings like get_catalog.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Call this before querying a new pack', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to identify the appropriate trigger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_disaster_link_chain and get_disaster_links_for_event both take an exact event id and return related disaster information, which could cause confusion. The discovery tools (get_catalog, get_pack, get_tool_help) are well-separated.
All tools use the get_ prefix except search_disaster_links, which is a minor deviation. The naming style is consistent (get_<noun> or get_<noun>_<qualifier>), so the pattern is predictable with one exception.
The server has 8 tools, which is well within the typical 3-15 range for a domain like earthquake data and disaster links. Each tool covers a distinct aspect: discovery, live vs. canonical queries, and link exploration.
The tool surface covers canonical and live earthquake queries, pack discovery, and disaster link search/expansion. Minor gaps include lack of a dedicated single-event retrieval tool (though filters may suffice) and no administrative/update operations, which is expected for a read-focused data server.