EPA EJScreen

get_environmental_indicators

Get specific environmental indicators by block group.

Returns environmental indicator values and state percentiles for
block groups. Can filter to a specific indicator type or return all.

Args:
    state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'WA', 'CA').
    county_fips: Optional county FIPS code (3-digit or 5-digit).
                 If omitted, returns state-level results.
    indicator: Optional specific indicator to focus on. Options:
               'pm25', 'ozone', 'diesel', 'cancer', 'respiratory',
               'traffic', 'lead', 'superfund', 'hazwaste',
               'wastewater', 'rmp', 'ust'. If omitted, returns all.
    limit: Maximum number of block groups to return (default 50, max 500).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

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 what the tool returns (environmental indicator values and state percentiles), the scope behavior (state-level when county omitted), filtering capabilities, and a default/max limit. It doesn't mention error handling or data source caveats, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise summary sentence, then a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value; the length is justified by the detail needed for parameter options, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 description covers all essential aspects for a tool with 4 parameters, including parameter semantics, defaults, filtering options, and scope behavior. An output schema is present, so return structure doesn't need explanation. It is complete for an agent to select and 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%, so the description fully compensates. It documents all four parameters: state with examples, county_fips with format and behavior, indicator with a complete enum list, and limit with default and max. This goes well beyond the minimal schema information.

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 verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('environmental indicators') and scope ('by block group'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on demographic indicators or county/state summaries. The first sentence is specific and informative.

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 context for when to use the tool: to retrieve environmental indicators for block groups, with optional county and indicator filters, and state-level fallback behavior. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate usage.

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

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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: demographics, environmental indicators, county EJ summary, state EJ summary, and point-location EJ data. No two tools are likely to be confused despite all relating to EJScreen.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase. The pattern is uniform, making it easy to predict tool behavior from names.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is appropriate for the scope of providing EJScreen data access. Each covers a necessary aspect of the domain without unnecessary redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The set covers demographic, environmental, county/state summaries, and point-based EJ screening. A minor gap is the lack of a direct block-group lookup by ID, though county/state filtering partially addresses this.

Resources

Need Help?