DaedalMap Flood Events
Server Details
Global flood events and extent 1985-present from the Dartmouth Flood Observatory and GFD.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: get_catalog lists available packs, get_pack provides detailed metadata, query_dataset executes generic queries, and search_disaster_links finds cross-disaster relationships. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_catalog, get_pack, query_dataset, search_disaster_links). Perfectly uniform.
With 4 tools covering discovery, metadata, query, and relationship search, the count fits the server's purpose well. It is neither too sparse nor overloaded.
The tools cover essential operations for discovering and querying data packs. A minor gap is the absence of direct flood-specific filtering or subscription features, but the generic query_dataset suffices for the stated domain.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_catalogGet CatalogARead-onlyInspect
Free discovery. Returns the list of live agent-ready data packs available on DaedalMap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, making safety clear. Description adds useful context that the list is 'live agent-ready' and from DaedalMap, which goes 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with minimal redundancy. 'Free discovery' is slightly redundant with the second sentence, but overall concise and front-loaded.
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 simple list retrieval with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned and from where. Some missing details on data pack format, but acceptable given tool simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%, so description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it returns a list of data packs, with specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'list of live agent-ready data packs'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_pack or query_dataset.
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?
Only implies usage via 'Free discovery' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_pack or query_dataset. Missing context for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_packGet PackARead-onlyInspect
Free 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 such as 'currency', 'earthquakes', 'floods', 'hurricanes', 'tornadoes', 'tsunamis', 'un_sdg', 'volcanoes', 'world_factbook', or 'worldpop'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds behavioral context like 'Free discovery' and specifies the data returned, beyond what annotations provide.
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, no filler. Key purpose ('Free discovery') is first, then details, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned (metadata, coverage, freshness, guidance, examples) and why to use it. It could mention linking to query_dataset but is adequate for a simple tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of pack_id including examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating it identifies the pack.
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 it 'Returns detailed metadata, coverage, freshness, preferred canonical tool guidance, and first-query examples for one pack.' It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_catalog lists packs, query_dataset queries data) by focusing on single-pack discovery.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'Call this before querying a new pack' and explains benefits: 'see time shape, coverage limits, and the paste-ready first query.' Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query_datasetQuery DatasetARead-onlyInspect
Generic structured query for direct source_id or pack_id access using the same contract as POST /api/v1/query/dataset. Free packs: boundaries, currency, distributed_manufacturing, floods, geography, nri, owid_co2, reverse-geocoding, un_sdg, un_wpp, volcanoes, world_bank_wdi. Paid packs: earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, wildfires, world_factbook, worldpop (x402 Base USDC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Optional sort instructions for row-returning queries. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of rows to return for the requested source or pack. | |
| output | No | Optional output controls such as response format hints. | |
| filters | No | Structured filters including time, region_ids, and compare clauses. | |
| metrics | No | Metric ids to return. Use event_count for aggregate counts when supported. | |
| pack_id | No | Pack identifier such as 'currency', 'earthquakes', 'floods', 'hurricanes', 'tornadoes', 'tsunamis', 'un_sdg', 'volcanoes', 'world_factbook', or 'worldpop'. | |
| source_id | No | Concrete source id such as 'earthquakes_events', 'volcanoes_events', 'hurricanes_events', or 'un_sdg/01'. | |
| request_id | No | Optional caller-supplied request id for tracing and idempotency. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a query operation. Beyond annotations, the description adds behavioral context: it mentions specific free and paid packs, including pricing for paid packs in Base USDC. This informs the agent about potential costs and data availability, which is useful beyond the read-only nature.
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?
The description is two sentences: the first defines the tool, the second lists packs. It is concise, front-loaded with the core operation, and avoids unnecessary detail. However, the list of packs could be formatted for readability, and the description could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentences for free vs paid). No fluff, but minor room for improvement.
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?
Given 8 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview. It explains the tool's function and lists available packs. However, it does not mention the output format or pagination behavior (despite the 'limit' parameter in schema), which are relevant for a query tool. The description is adequate but misses some operational context.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds extra value by listing concrete examples for pack_id (e.g., 'currency', 'earthquakes') and source_id (e.g., 'earthquakes_events'), which clarifies the expected parameter values beyond the schema descriptions. This helps the agent understand valid identifiers.
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 it is a 'generic structured query for direct source_id or pack_id access', specifying the exact operation and resource. It lists free and paid packs, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like get_catalog (which lists data sets) and search_disaster_links (which searches disaster links). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 implies usage for querying datasets by source or pack ID, and lists available packs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_catalog or get_pack. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_disaster_linksSearch Disaster LinksARead-onlyInspect
Free linked-disaster discovery helper. Searches published cross-disaster link families by event-type direction, optional via-event type, and optional year window. Use this when you want to discover whether a relationship family exists before you have an exact event id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of matching chains to return. Default 10. | |
| year_end | No | Optional inclusive ending year filter. | |
| request_id | No | Optional caller-supplied request id for tracing. | |
| year_start | No | Optional inclusive starting year filter. | |
| end_event_type | No | Optional ending event type such as tsunami, flood, tornado, or earthquake. | |
| via_event_type | No | Optional intermediate event type for bounded chain discovery. | |
| start_event_type | No | Optional starting event type such as earthquake, hurricane, volcano, wildfire, flood, tornado, or tsunami. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds little beyond stating it's a 'Free linked-disaster discovery helper.' It does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like rate limits or response structure, but the annotation covers safety.
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?
The description is three sentences front-loaded with purpose, then parameter overview, then usage guidance. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no redundancy.
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?
While the description covers the core logic and usage context, it lacks details on return format or what constitutes a 'link family.' Given 7 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the base is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into 'event-type direction,' 'optional via-event type,' and 'optional year window,' providing context beyond individual schema descriptions.
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's purpose: searching cross-disaster link families by event-type direction and optional filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing discovery before having an exact event ID, which sets it apart from tools like get_catalog or get_pack.
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 provides an explicit usage scenario: 'Use this when you want to discover whether a relationship family exists before you have an exact event id.' This gives clear guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!