FEMA Disasters

get_hazard_mitigation_grants

Get FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) data.

Returns data on grants awarded to reduce future disaster losses through
mitigation projects such as property acquisition, elevation, and
infrastructure improvements.

Args:
    state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX').
    limit: Maximum number of records to return (default 25, max 1000).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the limit default/max and state format, which adds some value. However, it does not explain what happens when state is omitted, any authentication requirements, or other behavioral nuances such as pagination.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The parameter list is concise and each sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 is simple with two optional parameters, and an output schema exists, so return details are covered. The description explains the purpose and parameters well. A minor gap is the lack of explanation for behavior when the state parameter is null, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters: state with examples ('CA', 'TX') and limit with default and max values. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) data.' It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_disaster_declarations and get_individual_assistance by focusing specifically on HMGP grants.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that HMGP data is the correct choice based on the name alone.

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

All FEMA Disasters 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 resource: declarations list, single declaration detail, and three separate assistance programs (HMGP, IHP, PA). The differentiation between declaration metadata and assistance data is clear, and the three assistance tools are distinguishable by their program-specific descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same verb_non ('get_') pattern with a clear noun descriptor, making the API predictable. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the count is well-scoped for a read-only FEMA data retrieval server. Each tool covers a major data category, and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.

Completeness4/5

The core domain of FEMA disasters is well-covered with declarations, detail, and the three main assistance programs. Minor gaps exist, such as no year filter on assistance queries or other FEMA datasets, but these do not severely hinder core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?