compare_cities
Read-onlyIdempotent
Compare the EPA records of several cities side by side. Pass cities as 'City, ST' strings.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cities | Yes | e.g. ['Burlington, VT', 'Houston, TX'] |
TapWaterMap
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds context that it compares EPA records, but does not elaborate on behavior beyond that.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.
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?
For a simple tool with good annotations and one parameter, description is nearly complete. However, it does not specify output format or what the comparison results look like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds a format example ('City, ST') but does not substantially increase understanding beyond schema.
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?
Describes specific action: compare EPA records of several cities side by side. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_city_water or search_cities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides format for input (City, ST) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_cities or search. No when-not scenarios mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Some tools have overlapping purposes: search and search_cities both find cities by name, and fetch and get_city_water both retrieve detailed records for a city. However, descriptions differentiate them (e.g., search returns an id, search_cities returns counts and URL), so an agent can often pick correctly, but confusion is possible.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names mix conventions: single-word verbs (fetch, search), verb_noun (compare_cities, find_cities), and noun_noun (coverage_stats). There is no consistent pattern, and similar tools have different naming styles (e.g., search vs search_cities).
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is well-suited for querying EPA tap water data. Each tool serves a distinct purpose within the domain, and the count is neither too few (limiting functionality) nor too many (overwhelming).
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers key operations: searching cities, retrieving records, comparing, filtering, explaining contaminants, and coverage stats. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no way to search contaminants by partial name), but core workflows are supported.