FEMA Disasters

get_public_assistance

Get FEMA Public Assistance (PA) grant data for disaster recovery.

Returns PA grant obligations that fund debris removal, emergency
protective measures, and permanent restoration of infrastructure.
Filter by disaster number or state.

Args:
    disaster_number: FEMA disaster number to filter by (e.g. 4737).
    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
`disaster_number`	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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the tool returns grant obligations and specifies the types of expenses covered (debris removal, emergency measures, restoration). It also mentions filtering capabilities and default/maximum limits. It does not explicitly state read-only or lack of side effects, but the 'Get' verb implies a safe read operation, and the extra context about grant categories adds value beyond a bare description.

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 and well-structured: a clear lead sentence, a brief explanation of what is returned, and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, the type of data included, and filtering options, which is sufficient for an agent to determine when and how to invoke it. The only minor gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but the name and description make that clear.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully documents every parameter with examples and constraints. It explains disaster_number (FEMA disaster number), state (two-letter abbreviation), and limit (default 25, max 1000). This provides complete semantic guidance that the schema itself lacks.

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 begins with 'Get FEMA Public Assistance (PA) grant data for disaster recovery,' which uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the grant type (PA) and includes relevant details about the nature of the grants (e.g., debris removal, infrastructure restoration).

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 PA grant data, specifically for disaster recovery. It mentions filtering by disaster number or state, giving usage direction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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?