FCC Broadband Map

get_providers_by_county

Get list of broadband providers serving a county.

Returns provider names, technology types, and speed tiers available
in the specified county. Useful for BEAD applications to identify
which providers serve an area and what technologies they deploy.

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.
    technology_code: Filter by technology (0=All, 10=Copper, 40=Cable,
                    50=Fiber, 60=Satellite, 70=Fixed Wireless).
    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
`technology_code`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, data freshness, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 concise: a single sentence for purpose, one for return value and usage, followed by a structured parameter list. Every part earns its place without redundancy.

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 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and usage context. An output schema exists, so the lack of explicit return format details is acceptable. It could mention that result order is undefined.

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 compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed explanations for each parameter, including examples (county_fips '11001'), enumerated technology_code values, and default values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's title fields.

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 'Get list of broadband providers serving a county' and specifies the return fields (provider names, technology types, speed tiers). It distinguishes from sibling tools (by_location, summary) by focusing on a detailed county-level provider list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'useful for BEAD applications to identify which providers serve an area,' which gives context but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use it. Alternative tools can be inferred from names, but no direct guidance is provided.

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?