FCC Broadband Map

get_broadband_summary_by_county

Get broadband availability statistics for a county.

Returns aggregated broadband data including provider counts, technology
availability, and BEAD-relevant metrics (unserved/underserved/served
location percentages).

NOTE: County-level summary endpoints may not be directly available in all
API versions. This tool attempts multiple endpoint patterns.

Args:
    county_fips: 5-digit county FIPS code (e.g. '11001' for Washington DC,
                 '53033' for King County WA). Always a string, never an integer.
    speed_download: Minimum download speed threshold in Mbps (default 25).
    speed_upload: Minimum upload speed threshold in Mbps (default 3).
    as_of_date: BDC filing date in YYYY-MM-DD format (default 2024-06-30).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`as_of_date`	No	2024-06-30
`county_fips`	Yes
`speed_upload`	No
`speed_download`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the fallback behavior (attempts multiple endpoint patterns) and lists return metrics. However, it lacks information on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or potential destructive actions.

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-organized with a main sentence, a list of return content, a usage note, and parameter docstrings. It is front-loaded with purpose. While a bit lengthy, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input parameters and behavioral notes. The note about API version variability is important context. All four parameters are explained. The description is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 must compensate. It explains each parameter in detail: county_fips with examples and type enforcement, speed thresholds with defaults, and date format. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'broadband summary by county', listing specific metrics (provider counts, technology availability, BEAD metrics). It differentiates from siblings like get_broadband_summary_by_state and get_providers_by_county by specifying the geographic level.

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 includes a note about API version availability and that the tool attempts multiple endpoint patterns, which provides context on when it might be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

All FCC Broadband Map 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 targets a distinct scope: location point, county, state, and providers in county. There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the pattern 'get_<object>_by_<scope>' (e.g., get_broadband_by_location, get_providers_by_county). The naming is consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server covers the essential query types for broadband data (location, county summary, state summary, provider list). The count is well-scoped without being excessive.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main use cases for querying FCC broadband data. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch or multi-location query, but core CRUD-like operations are present for a read-only API.

Resources

Need Help?