CDC Social Vulnerability Index

get_most_vulnerable

Get the most vulnerable counties in a state ranked by SVI score.

Returns counties sorted by highest SVI percentile ranking for the
specified theme. Useful for identifying priority areas for grants
and community health interventions.

Args:
    state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'WA', 'CA').
    theme: SVI theme to rank by. Options: 'overall', 'socioeconomic',
           'household' (composition/disability), 'minority' (status/language),
           'housing' (type/transportation). Default is 'overall'.
    limit: Number of counties to return (default 20, max 100).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`state`	Yes
`theme`	No	overall

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are sorted by highest SVI percentile ranking, the default theme, and the limit constraint (default 20, max 100). It does not mention potential edge cases like invalid state or no data, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, a use case sentence, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the Args section is easy to scan.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and a clear use case. The description covers the purpose, parameters, sorting behavior, and context. Given the output schema exists, the description needn't detail return fields, making it contextually complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: state format ('WA', 'CA'), theme options with parenthetical meanings, and limit with default and max. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 gets the most vulnerable counties in a state ranked by SVI score. The verb 'Get' and resource 'most vulnerable counties' are specific, and the comparison with sibling tools (compare_svi, get_county_svi, get_tract_svi) is implicit through the focus on ranking counties by vulnerability.

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?

The description explains the tool is useful for identifying priority areas for grants and community health interventions, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling names imply the distinction.

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?