Skip to main content
Glama

Can you drink the tap water here?

tap_water
Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether the tap water is drinkable, hamlet by hamlet, from the guide's read of the water utility's and the state health department's own reporting. Call this for any drink-the-water, tap, well, filter, bottled-water, PFAS, 1,4-dioxane or is-the-water-safe question, and call it before reassuring anybody, because the East End does not have one answer: three of the hamlets covered are private-well territory (Springs, Shelter Island, Southold) where NO agency tests the water and the only honest answer is "ask your host for the last test result", and Wainscott's story — PFOS and PFOA in more than 150 private wells, then a main extension in December 2018 that put the hamlet on public water — is one a model reliably garbles into a warning about the wrong contaminant or a hamlet-wide all-clear. Every safe here is about PUBLIC water only. verdict is the guide's own paragraph for that hamlet: read it out rather than reducing it to yes or no. status comes with statusMeaning so you never have to infer what the word covers, and filterRecommendation names a certification rather than a brand — with filterCaveat alongside it wherever the guide's own glossary has since corrected which NSF/ANSI number covers PFAS, which is the difference between the right filter and the wrong one. sources are the citable links with the date each was read, and they carry two things no model holds: SCWA's June 2025 declaration of full compliance with the federal PFOA/PFOS limits six years early, and the Stage 1 Water Alert declared across the East End on 14 July 2026 — a drought conservation request whose own notice says supply and quality are unaffected, so never repeat it as a health warning. utilities names who actually pipes the water and the number to ring; it deliberately carries no URL, because the guide's filed links for those records no longer resolve and a dead citation is worse than none. noVerdictHeld names a place the guide has not written up — say that plainly instead of reading the next hamlet's verdict across. Pass a hamlet, a region, or the ZIP off the lease. With no argument nothing is looked up: you get the hamlets covered, so ask which one. Never tell anyone their own private well is safe.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
placeNoWhere they are: a hamlet ('Montauk', 'Springs', 'Wainscott'), a region ('the Hamptons', 'North Fork'), or a ZIP ('11937'). Pass the asker's own words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds far more: every 'safe' refers to PUBLIC water only, three hamlets are private-well territory where no agency tests, the Wainscott PFOS/PFOA history, the Stage 1 Water Alert is a conservation notice not a health warning, and 'utilities' deliberately omits URLs because the guide's links no longer resolve.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense wall of prose with stacked clauses and em-dash asides that is disproportionately long for a one-parameter lookup. Most sentences carry real information, but the structure is heavy and would benefit from trimming.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does: verdict, status, statusMeaning, filterRecommendation, filterCaveat, sources, utilities, and noVerdictHeld are all described with their semantics and caveats.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'place' param, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying accepted forms ('a hamlet, a region, or the ZIP off the lease') and, importantly, the no-argument behavior, which the schema cannot express.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Whether the tap water is drinkable, hamlet by hamlet.' It is instantly distinguishable from every sibling (none of which concern water) and states the granularity of the answer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly enumerates the triggering question types (drink-the-water, tap, well, filter, bottled-water, PFAS, 1,4-dioxane, is-the-water-safe) and adds a timing rule ('call it before reassuring anybody'). It also handles the zero-argument case: 'With no argument nothing is looked up... so ask which one.'

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources