USGS Water Monitoring

get_sites_by_state

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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`state`	Yes
`site_type`	No	ST

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

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 states the operation is a read-only search ("Find") and specifies the return content: a list of monitoring stations with site numbers, names, and locations. It also notes the default limit. However, it doesn't explicitly mention error behavior, pagination, or rate limits, but these are less critical for a simple lookup tool and the output schema covers return format.

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 well-structured and concise: a clear purpose sentence, a sentence about the return value, a pointer to the next tool, and a neatly formatted Args section. No wasted words, every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (three parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and the relationship to sibling tools. The only minor omission is no explicit 'when not to use,' but the clear separation of tool purposes makes this unnecessary.

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 each parameter: state is a two-letter abbreviation with examples, site_type lists the meaning of each code, and limit includes a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Find USGS water monitoring sites in a state.' It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_flood_status, get_water_levels) by focusing on site discovery, and explicitly mentions the connection to get_water_levels.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use site numbers with get_water_levels to retrieve data.' This directly tells the agent when and how to use this tool in a workflow, referencing a sibling tool. It also explains the meaning of site_type with examples, clarifying when each option is appropriate.

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

All USGS Water Monitoring 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

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: flood status, site discovery, and water level data. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent 'get_' + descriptive noun pattern (get_flood_status, get_sites_by_state, get_water_levels). The naming convention is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped and each tool earns its place. The count is appropriate for a focused monitoring data access server.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the primary workflow: discover sites, retrieve water levels, and check flood conditions. No obvious gaps exist for the server's stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?