US Drought Monitor

get_current_drought

Get current drought conditions from the US Drought Monitor.

Returns the percentage of area at each drought intensity level:
- None: No drought
- D0: Abnormally Dry
- D1: Moderate Drought
- D2: Severe Drought
- D3: Extreme Drought
- D4: Exceptional Drought

Provide either a state abbreviation for statewide data or a county FIPS code
for county-level detail. Omit both for national data.

Args:
    state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX').
    county_fips: Five-digit county FIPS code (e.g. '06037' for Los Angeles County).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	No
`county_fips`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output format (percentage of area at each drought level), explains the severity categories, and clarifies the scope of data. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid inputs (e.g., both state and county_fips provided) or data freshness, which would be useful.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a helpful bullet list of drought levels, and concise parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

The description is quite complete for a two-parameter, read-only tool. It explains the return format and parameter usage. Missing is a note on what happens if both state and county_fips are supplied (precedence or error), but this is a minor gap given the overall clarity.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining the state abbreviation format with examples, the five-digit FIPS code with an example, and the mutual exclusivity/optionality of the parameters.

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's function: 'Get current drought conditions from the US Drought Monitor.' It specifies the resource (US Drought Monitor) and differentiates from siblings by focusing on 'current' conditions, as opposed to history or summary tools.

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 provides clear instructions on when to use each parameter: state for statewide data, county_fips for county-level detail, and omitting both for national data. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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

All US Drought Monitor 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

get_current_drought and get_drought_summary both return national-level current drought percentages when no location is specified, creating potential overlap. However, their intended use cases (location-specific data vs national summary) are mostly clear, so the confusion is limited.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the get_ prefix, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools cover current conditions, historical trends, and national summary—each earns its place for a focused drought data server. This is within the typical 3-15 tool range.

Completeness4/5

The server provides current, historical, and summary data, covering the main drought monitoring needs. A minor gap is that get_drought_history explicitly mentions state and county FIPS but does not state whether national-level historical data is available, which could be an oversight.

Resources

Need Help?