Get fire perimeter data for active or recent wildfires.
Returns perimeter boundaries and associated metadata. Useful for
understanding the geographic extent of fires.
Args:
fire_name: Name of a specific fire to look up (case-insensitive partial match).
state: Two-letter US state abbreviation to filter by.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | ||
| fire_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the tool returns perimeter boundaries and metadata, which is useful. It does not disclose data source, update frequency, or authentication needs, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.
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?
The description is appropriately short and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Useful for understanding geographic extent' sentence is slightly redundant but harmless. Overall, no wasted words.
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?
The description covers purpose, output type, and both parameters adequately. Since an output schema exists, return structure does not need to be re-described. It could have mentioned how to filter to recent fires globally, but the current information is sufficient for basic use.
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?
The input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides Args that explain fire_name as a 'case-insensitive partial match' and state as a 'Two-letter US state abbreviation to filter by'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it does not specify behavior when both are omitted.
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?
Description states 'Get fire perimeter data for active or recent wildfires' – a specific verb+resource. It further clarifies it returns perimeter boundaries and associated metadata, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_active_fires and get_fire_stats by focusing on geographic extent.
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?
The phrase 'Useful for understanding the geographic extent of fires' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention exclusions. It gives some context but no direct alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.