EPA EJScreen

get_ej_county_summary

Get EJ indicators for census block groups in a county.

Returns EJScreen environmental justice data for block groups within
the specified county, sorted by highest overall environmental burden.
Includes environmental indicators, demographic data, and EJ indexes.

Args:
    state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'WA', 'CA').
    county_fips: County FIPS code, either 5-digit full (e.g. '53033')
                 or 3-digit county portion (e.g. '033'). If 3 digits,
                 state FIPS is prepended automatically.
    limit: Maximum number of block groups to return (default 50, max 500).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "state": "<state>",
      "county_fips": "<county_fips>"
    },
    "name": "get_ej_county_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedApr 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the sort order (highest overall environmental burden), the types of data included, and the automatic FIPS code handling. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or permissions, though 'Get' and 'Returns' imply a read-only operation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then provides structured parameter documentation with examples. It is concise, with no filler, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 an output schema, so return value details are not required, but the description still describes the output categories and sorting. Together with thorough parameter docs and clear scope, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description thoroughly documents each parameter: state format with examples, county_fips with both 5-digit and 3-digit handling including auto-prepending, and limit with default and max. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('EJ indicators'), and specifies the scope ('census block groups in a county'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_ej_state_summary (state-level) and get_demographic_indicators (demographics only).

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 clearly states the tool is for county-level data and describes the output, but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Agents can infer when to use it based on the county scope, but the description lacks direct 'when not to use' guidance.

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

All EPA EJScreen tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?