EPA Air Quality & Toxics

get_annual_air_quality

Get annual air quality summary data for a US state.

Returns annual statistics from the EPA Air Quality System (AQS),
including mean concentrations, max values, and exceedance counts
for the specified pollutant across all monitoring sites in the state.

Args:
    state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'NY').
    parameter: Pollutant to query. Options: 'PM2.5', 'Ozone', 'SO2', 'NO2', 'CO'.
               Default is 'PM2.5'.
    start_year: Start year for the query range (e.g. 2020). Default is 2020.
    end_year: End year for the query range (e.g. 2023). Default is 2023.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`state`	Yes
`end_year`	No
`parameter`	No	PM2.5
`start_year`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It specifies the data source (EPA AQS), the aggregation across all monitoring sites, and the types of statistics returned (mean concentrations, max values, exceedance counts). It does not mention edge cases or rate limits, but for a read-only query tool, this is adequate.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a clear overview, followed by a concise Args list that adds valuable parameter details. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary fluff, though the Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 tool has an output schema, so return format is already specified. The description covers the data source, aggregation level, and parameter options, making it complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly address error handling, but that is not critical for this use case.

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's Args section provides detailed semantics for all four parameters, including allowed values for 'parameter' (PM2.5, Ozone, etc.) and explicit defaults for years. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, adding value beyond the raw input schema.

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 'Get annual air quality summary data for a US state' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on historical annual summaries (EPA AQS) rather than current AQI or forecasts, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for historical annual air quality data, differentiating it from current AQI and forecast tools. While no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, the context provides clear guidance for when to use this tool over its siblings.

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

All EPA Air Quality & Toxics 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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The two air quality tools (current and forecast) are clearly separated by time frame, and the historical summary is distinct. The two toxics tools (Superfund and TRI) are both state-based hazard listings but differ in content (cleanup sites vs. reporting facilities). Minor potential confusion between Superfund and TRI, but descriptions clarify.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use the consistent 'get_' prefix followed by descriptive noun phrases in snake_case. The pattern is uniform across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools cover the server's stated scope of air quality and toxics without redundancy. Each tool addresses a distinct data need, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The air quality surface covers current, forecast, and annual historical data. The toxics surface covers site and facility listings. Missing are detailed facility-level emissions or site-specific cleanup data, but core queries are supported.

Resources

Need Help?