get_water_system
Read-onlyIdempotent
EPA record for a single water system by its PWSID (e.g. 'VT0005053'): name, population served, source, and violations.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pwsid | Yes |
TapWaterMap
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds context about the returned fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the example PWSID. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.
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?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotation coverage, the description adequately specifies the returned fields (name, population, source, violations) and provides an example. It gives the agent enough context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides an example value ('VT0005053') and explains that the parameter is a PWSID, linking to EPA records. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition.
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 verb ('get'), the resource ('EPA record for a single water system'), and the identifier (PWSID with example). It also lists the fields returned (name, population, source, violations), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_cities' or 'get_city_water'.
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?
The description implies usage when a specific PWSID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_cities' or 'find_cities'). No exclusionary or conditional guidance is provided.
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.