list_state_cities
Read-onlyIdempotent
List all covered cities in a state (with violation counts).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | 2-letter state code. |
TapWaterMap
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by noting that results include violation counts. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., invalid state code) or pagination/limits, which would be helpful for a complete behavioral picture.
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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key output feature (violation counts).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the primary purpose and an output detail. However, it does not define 'covered cities' or describe the return format, which would be useful for an agent lacking output schema context. This represents a minimum viable completeness.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'state', and the schema already provides the 2-letter code requirement. The description adds no additional meaning or format details beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies 'List all covered cities in a state (with violation counts)', using a specific verb (list) and resource (cities), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_cities' and 'get_city_water' by focusing on listing all cities in a state with violation data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_cities' or 'coverage_stats'. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support among 9 sibling tools.
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.