USGS Water Monitoring
Server Details
Real-time water levels and flow rates from USGS stream gauges
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: get_flood_status retrieves flood conditions, get_sites_by_state lists monitoring sites, and get_water_levels fetches time-series data for a specific site. The descriptions clearly differentiate their functions, eliminating any ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_flood_status, get_sites_by_state, get_water_levels) with 'get' as the verb and descriptive nouns. This uniformity makes the tools predictable and easy to understand.
With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a water monitoring domain, lacking operations like update, delete, or more specialized queries (e.g., historical trends, alerts). However, it covers basic retrieval needs, placing it at the borderline of appropriateness.
The tools provide core read operations (get flood status, list sites, retrieve water levels), but there are notable gaps such as no create, update, or delete capabilities, and missing features like data aggregation or alert management. This limits agents to basic monitoring without full lifecycle coverage.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_flood_statusAInspect
Get current flood conditions for USGS monitoring sites in a state.
Returns sites where water levels are above flood stage, indicating
active flooding or near-flood conditions. Checks the most recent
instantaneous values against known flood stages.
Args:
state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX', 'LA').| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavioral details not in schema: checks 'most recent instantaneous values' (real-time) and compares against 'known flood stages' (filtering logic).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Compact 4-sentence structure front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value without repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for this low-complexity tool with 1 parameter; mentions output schema exists so detailed return value documentation isn't necessary in description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates perfectly for 0% schema description coverage by specifying state parameter is 'Two-letter US state abbreviation' with clear examples (CA, TX, LA).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific action (get flood conditions) and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly filtering for 'sites where water levels are above flood stage' vs generic water level queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage through return value description (active flooding) but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance comparing to get_water_levels or get_sites_by_state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_sites_by_stateAInspect
Find USGS water monitoring sites in a state.
Returns a list of monitoring stations with their site numbers, names,
and locations. Use site numbers with get_water_levels to retrieve data.
Args:
state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX').
site_type: Type of monitoring site. 'ST' for stream/river, 'GW' for groundwater well, 'SP' for spring.
limit: Maximum number of sites to return (default 50).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | Yes | ||
| site_type | No | ST |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return format (list with site numbers/names/locations) and references defaults, but lacks other behavioral traits like rate limits or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose upfront, workflow hint, and Args section; concise with no redundancy despite schema lack of descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive coverage for a 3-parameter tool; describes outputs sufficiently given output schema exists and fully explains inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema coverage by providing detailed semantics for all params including enum meanings for site_type and format examples for state.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific purpose (find USGS water monitoring sites) and distinguishes from get_water_levels by explaining the workflow relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit workflow guidance on using results with get_water_levels, though lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_water_levelsAInspect
Get recent water level and streamflow data for a USGS monitoring site.
Returns time-series data including discharge (streamflow) and gage height
for the specified monitoring station.
Args:
site_number: USGS site number (e.g. '01646500' for Potomac River at Little Falls).
days: Number of days of data to retrieve (default 7, max 120).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| site_number | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavioral constraints (default 7 days, max 120 days) and return data types (discharge, gage height) that are absent from annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose front-loaded, followed by return value description, then Args section; no redundant or filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple 2-parameter tool; adequately covers inputs while relying on output schema for return details, though brief mention of relationship to site discovery would strengthen it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed semantic meaning for both parameters, including format examples and value constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves time-series water level/streamflow data for a specific USGS site, implicitly distinguishing it from sibling discovery (get_sites_by_state) and status (get_flood_status) tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings, though the scope (time-series data for a specific site) is implied by the description content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!