NIFC Wildfire Data

get_active_fires

Get current active wildfire incidents from NIFC.

Returns data on active wildfires including name, location, size, and
containment status. Data is updated frequently during fire season.

Args:
    state: Two-letter US state abbreviation to filter by (e.g. 'CA', 'OR').
    min_acres: Minimum fire size in acres to include (e.g. 100 for fires over 100 acres).
    limit: Maximum number of fires to return (default 50).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is updated frequently and describes the return fields, clearly implying a read-only operation. It could add more about potential delays or errors, but for a straightforward GET tool, this is sufficient.

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, starting with a one-sentence purpose, a brief return description, and a clear Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose; no fluff.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, return fields, and data source. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return structure fully. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings, but the purpose is clear enough for correct selection. Overall, very complete for a 3-parameter read tool.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: state (two-letter abbreviation with examples), min_acres (minimum size), and limit (maximum number, default 50). This adds critical meaning the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('active wildfire incidents') and source (NIFC). It also lists the returned fields (name, location, size, containment status), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_fire_perimeters and get_fire_stats.

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 gives clear context (current, active incidents, frequently updated during fire season) implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All NIFC Wildfire Data 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of wildfire data: active fire incidents, fire perimeters, and aggregate statistics. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the pattern 'get_' followed by a descriptive noun in snake_case (get_active_fires, get_fire_perimeters, get_fire_stats). The naming is perfectly consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With only three tools, the server is minimal but each tool serves a clear and necessary purpose for wildfire data retrieval. The count is well-scoped for the narrow domain.

Completeness4/5

The server covers listing active fires, retrieving perimeters, and getting statistics. A minor gap is the lack of a direct way to fetch detailed information for a specific fire by name, though perimeters can be looked up by name.

Resources

Need Help?