DaedalMap Tornado Events
Server Details
US tornado events 1950-present from the NOAA Storm Prediction Center: EF rating, tracks, damage.
- 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 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a unique and well-defined role: get_catalog lists available packs, get_pack provides detailed metadata and guidance for a specific pack, and query_dataset executes queries. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only three tools, the server covers the essential workflows of discovery and querying. However, the presence of paid packs suggests possible missing tools for authentication or subscription management, but overall the count is reasonable for a focused data access server.
The tool surface includes discovery (catalog, pack details) and query execution, which are core operations. However, there is no tool for authentication, managing access to paid packs, or listing available datasets by category, which are notable gaps that could affect agent workflows.
Available Tools
3 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, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds 'Free discovery' and 'live agent-ready data packs' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits 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?
The description is extremely concise, using two short phrases. Every sentence is meaningful with no fluff.
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?
The description explains what the tool returns, but without an output schema, the agent lacks details about the structure of the list (e.g., pack names, IDs, metadata). This is a minor gap for a simple discovery 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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.
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 specifies the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'list of live agent-ready data packs' on 'DaedalMap'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings: get_pack (single pack retrieval) and query_dataset (querying data within a 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 phrase 'Free discovery' implies a safe, read-only operation for listing available packs. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_pack or query_dataset.
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 already mark readOnlyHint=true. Description adds context: 'Free discovery' and lists returned elements (metadata, coverage, freshness, guidance, examples). No contradictions; behavior is well-disclosed for a read-only snapshot.
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 efficient sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
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?
With one required param, readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, inputs, and usage context. No gaps evident.
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 param description listing examples. Description does not add further parameter detail beyond stating 'one pack', which is baseline expected given high schema coverage.
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 detailed metadata, coverage, freshness, guidance, and examples for one pack. It distinguishes itself from siblings: get_catalog lists packs, query_dataset queries data, while get_pack provides pre-query 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 advises calling this before querying a new pack to see time shape, coverage limits, and first query. Implicitly contrasts with query_dataset. Could more explicitly exclude cases, but 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: currency, floods, un_sdg, volcanoes. Paid packs: earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to emphasize safety. The description adds context about pricing but does not reveal other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). It does not contradict 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?
The description is two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and packs essential info (free vs paid packs) efficiently.
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 the complexity (8 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the query contract and pack categories, but does not elaborate on how to structure filters or metrics, leaving that to the schema.
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 parameters are fully documented there. The description adds marginal value by listing valid pack IDs, which is already in the schema's pack_id description.
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: a generic structured query for direct source_id or pack_id access, referencing the exact API endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_catalog, get_pack) by focusing on data retrieval rather than metadata.
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 lists free and paid packs, giving immediate guidance on cost implications. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when to use query_dataset over get_catalog/get_pack, though this is implied by their names.
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!