DaedalMap Volcanic Activity
Server Details
Historical volcanic eruption records and volcanic activity queries from the DaedalMap MCP lane.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- xyver/daedal-map
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 3.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
The tools have clear primary purposes (e.g., get_earthquake_events for earthquakes, get_volcanic_activity for volcanic activity), but there is significant overlap between get_catalog, get_pack, and query_dataset in terms of data discovery and access. An agent might confuse when to use get_pack versus query_dataset for detailed metadata versus direct querying, and get_catalog serves a similar discovery role.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_catalog, get_earthquake_events, get_fx_rates), which is predictable and readable. The only deviation is query_dataset, which uses a different verb ('query' instead of 'get'), but this is minor and still follows a clear naming convention.
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a server focused on volcanic activity and related datasets (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis, currency). Each tool has a distinct role in querying specific data types or metadata, and none feel redundant or excessive for the apparent domain coverage.
The tool set covers key data types in the domain (volcanic activity, earthquakes, tsunamis, currency rates) with query capabilities and metadata access. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tools for updating or deleting data (though this may be intentional for a read-only query server), and the overlap in discovery tools could be streamlined, but agents can work around this for core querying tasks.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_catalogGet CatalogBRead-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 declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'live agent-ready data packs' and implies a discovery context with 'Free discovery', but doesn't detail behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists, so it meets the baseline for tools with 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 highly concise and front-loaded: two short sentences with zero waste. 'Free discovery' sets context efficiently, and the second sentence clearly states the action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover usage guidelines or differentiate from siblings, which could help in tool selection. For a list-retrieval tool, it's minimally viable but lacks completeness in contextual guidance.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as it avoids unnecessary details.
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: 'Returns the list of live agent-ready data packs available on DaedalMap.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of live agent-ready data packs'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pack' or 'query_dataset'. The 'Free discovery' phrase adds context but isn't essential to the core purpose.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_pack' (which might retrieve a specific pack) or 'query_dataset' (which might search datasets), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The 'Free discovery' phrase hints at exploratory use but lacks explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_live_volcano_eventsGet Live Volcano EventsARead-onlyInspect
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Recent lookback window in days. Ignored when start_time is provided. | |
| limit | No | Maximum live rows to return. | |
| min_vei | No | Optional minimum Volcanic Explosivity Index. | |
| orderby | No | Result ordering. | |
| end_time | No | Optional inclusive ISO-8601 end datetime or date. Defaults to now. | |
| request_id | No | Optional caller-supplied request id for tracing. | |
| start_time | No | Optional inclusive ISO-8601 start datetime or date. | |
| ongoing_only | No | When true, only return eruptions marked continuing by GVP. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying it's a 'free live wrapper' and that data is 'normalized to DaedalMap event fields', which helps understand the source and format. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which would enhance transparency further.
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 concise with two sentences: the first explains the core functionality and source, and the second clarifies the data scope. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient 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?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema) and annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, source, and data normalization, but could benefit from more behavioral details like response format or limitations, though annotations help mitigate gaps.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add specific parameter details beyond implying temporal filtering ('recent') and data scope ('preliminary'). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema carries the primary burden.
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 'calls the Smithsonian/GVP WFS for recent preliminary volcanic eruption updates' and 'normalized to DaedalMap event fields', which specifies both the verb (calls/gets) and resource (volcanic eruption updates). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'live' and 'preliminary' versus 'canonical history lane', though not explicitly naming alternatives 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for 'recent preliminary volcanic eruption updates' and contrasts with 'enriched canonical history lane', suggesting when to use this tool (for live/preliminary data) versus alternatives (for historical/canonical data). However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide clear exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pack_id | Yes | Pack identifier such as 'currency', 'earthquakes', 'volcanoes', 'tsunamis', 'hurricanes', 'un_sdg', 'world_factbook', or 'worldpop'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about what is returned (metadata, coverage, metrics, guidance) and the 'Free discovery' aspect, which is useful but does not fully disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling beyond the 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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with key information ('Free discovery. Returns detailed metadata...'), with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete enough for its purpose. It covers what the tool does and returns, though it could benefit from more behavioral context or output details, but annotations help fill some gaps.
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%, with the parameter 'pack_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 specific action ('Free discovery. Returns detailed metadata, coverage, metrics, and first-query guidance') and resource ('for one pack'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_catalog (which likely lists multiple packs) or query_dataset (which queries data rather than returning 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 implies usage for discovering pack details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_catalog or query_dataset. It provides context (e.g., 'first-query guidance') but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_volcanic_activityGet Volcanic ActivityBRead-onlyInspect
Free tool. Queries volcanoes_events for eruption records and volcanic activity metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Optional sort instructions for row-returning queries. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of rows to return. For top-N requests, include a narrow time range or region_ids before sorting. | |
| output | No | Optional output controls such as response format hints. | |
| filters | Yes | Structured filters including time ranges, region_ids, and compare clauses. | |
| metrics | Yes | Metric ids to return, such as 'event_count', 'VEI', or eruption attributes. | |
| 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?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the data source ('volcanoes_events') and types of data returned ('eruption records and volcanic activity metrics'), but it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists, so this is adequate given the annotation coverage.
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 and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences: 'Free tool. Queries volcanoes_events for eruption records and volcanic activity metrics.' Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose, with no wasted information or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint: true) but no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic query intent and data source, which is sufficient for a read-only tool with good schema documentation. However, it doesn't address output details or advanced usage scenarios, leaving some gaps in contextual understanding.
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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic details beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples, or clarify usage beyond the basic query purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
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: 'Queries volcanoes_events for eruption records and volcanic activity metrics.' It specifies the verb ('queries'), resource ('volcanoes_events'), and scope ('eruption records and volcanic activity metrics'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_earthquake_events' or 'query_dataset', which would be needed for a perfect score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Free tool' but doesn't explain if this is a distinguishing factor from siblings or provide any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Without such information, an agent might struggle to choose between this and similar tools like 'get_earthquake_events' or 'query_dataset'.
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!