CDC Social Vulnerability Index

compare_svi

Compare SVI data across multiple counties.

Returns side-by-side SVI percentile rankings and key indicators for
the specified counties. Useful for comparing vulnerability across
service areas or peer counties.

Args:
    fips_codes: Comma-separated 5-digit county FIPS codes (e.g. '53033,53053,53061').
    year: SVI data year (default 2022, currently only 2022 available).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	No
`fips_codes`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the year limitation ('currently only 2022 available') and the nature of the output, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or prerequisites like minimum number of counties. This provides some transparency but leaves gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and immediately states the action and purpose. The args section is clearly formatted and adds necessary detail without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simple comparison nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential contextual and parameter information. It could mention edge cases like the need for at least two counties, but overall it is adequate.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description thoroughly explains both parameters beyond the schema: fips_codes format with example, and year default/availability. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is strong.

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 clearly states the tool 'Compare SVI data across multiple counties' and specifies the output ('side-by-side SVI percentile rankings and key indicators'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely handle single counties or tracts.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It notes the tool is 'Useful for comparing vulnerability across service areas or peer counties,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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

All CDC Social Vulnerability Index tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a distinct need: comparing counties, fetching county-level data, ranking most vulnerable, and fetching tract-level data. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a 'get_' prefix pattern with descriptive suffixes, but 'compare_svi' deviates by using 'compare' instead of 'get_'. Despite this minor inconsistency, the naming is readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

The server has 4 tools, which is well-scoped for its specialized purpose. Each tool covers a distinct query type without unnecessary bloat or overlap.

Completeness4/5

The set covers county and tract-level retrieval, county comparison, and vulnerability ranking. A minor gap is that tract-level data lacks detailed indicator breakdowns, but core workflows are well covered.

Resources

Need Help?