German and Swiss river gauges, groundwater and flood levels from ten official sources
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: flood overview, forecast, historical readings, station metadata, weather, and station search. Even the two time-series tools, get_forecast and get_readings, are unambiguously separated as future versus past data. The overlap between get_station and get_flood_situation is minimal because one covers a single station's master data and the other covers an aggregate list of currently flooded stations.
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern: all resource-fetching tools begin with get_ and search_stations is a natural verb-based exception. This makes the tool set highly predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for this hydrological data server. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct retrieval need, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the full read-only workflow: discover stations, inspect station details, retrieve observed time series, fetch forecasts, check flood warnings, and get weather context. No obvious dead ends exist, as search_stations naturally leads to get_station, get_readings, get_forecast, and get_weather.
Current flood situation: stations with an active LHP flood class (1 small … 4 very large), optionally per federal state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language for classification text (headline/description); defaults to German | |
| federalState | No | ISO 3166-2 code, e.g. DE-BY |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| stations | Yes | |
| countByClass | Yes | Station count per flood class name |
| stationsWithFlood | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'current' temporal aspect and the active flood class filter, but does not describe what happens when no stations match or provide deeper behavioral context (e.g., freshness, rate limits). With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, includes the classification scale, and mentions the optional filter. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or ambiguity.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention that the result is a list of stations, but the output schema likely provides that. The description adequately captures the tool's role for the given complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both locale and federalState have full descriptions in the schema. The description only reaffirms the optional federal state filter without adding new meaning, so the schema carries the semantic load. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool returns the current flood situation for stations with an active LHP flood class (1 small … 4 very large), with an optional federal state filter. This specific verb+resource+scope makes it immediately distinct from siblings like get_forecast and get_weather.
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 'Current flood situation' provides clear contextual when-to-use guidance, and the optional per-state filter is explicit. However, it does not contrast with alternatives or state exclusions, though the name and sibling context make the intended use unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Newest published water-level forecast for a station: the median of the state agency model run, future points within the horizon. Only gauges whose state publishes numeric forecasts have one, so an empty result is normal. Indicative, not an official warning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stationId | Yes | Namespaced station id, e.g. "lhp:RP_2640010" | |
| horizonHours | No | Hours ahead, default 72, capped at 240 |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | |
| unit | Yes | |
| count | Yes | |
| points | Yes | |
| source | Yes | |
| stationId | Yes | |
| generatedAt | Yes | Model run time; null when none was published |
| horizonHours | Yes | |
| valueDivisor | Yes | Divide valueCentimeters by this to read it in `unit` |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: data provenance (median of the state agency model run), the expected-empty-result condition, and the non-authoritative disclaimer. It stops short of describing pagination or cadence of publication.
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?
Three tight sentences: what it returns first, then the availability caveat, then the disclaimer. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers the remaining agent-critical unknowns: provenance, that empty results are normal, and that the output is indicative rather than an official warning.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the default 72 and the 240 cap. The description only echoes the horizon concept ('future points within the horizon') and adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a precise verb and resource ('Newest published water-level forecast for a station') and pins down the exact quantity returned (median of the state agency model run, future points within the horizon). This lets an agent distinguish it from get_readings (current observations) and get_flood_situation without opening any schema.
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?
It gives a clear applicability condition ('Only gauges whose state publishes numeric forecasts have one, so an empty result is normal') and a framing caveat ('Indicative, not an official warning'). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for the case where no forecast exists, but the when-it-applies guidance is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Time series for a station (downsampled to ≤200 points; history depth on this tier: last 90 days, default last 7 days). type "level" (default) → level series as stored valueCentimeters: centimetres above gauge zero for most gauges, but an elevation ×100 for groundwater wells and for gauges reporting an absolute elevation (Swiss gauges, the Neusiedler See) — divide by valueDivisor to read it in unit. type "discharge" → discharge Q in m³/s where the station provides it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ISO 8601 end, defaults to now | |
| from | No | ISO 8601 start, e.g. 2026-06-01T00:00:00Z | |
| type | No | Series type: level (default) or discharge (m³/s) | |
| stationId | Yes | Namespaced station id, e.g. "pegelonline:<uuid>" or "lhp:BY_10026301" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | Present when the series was downsampled |
| unit | No | Unit of a level series; absent for discharge |
| count | Yes | |
| summary | Yes | Min and max (level: in unit) and latest point; null when empty |
| readings | No | Level series as stored valueCentimeters |
| discharge | No | Discharge series, m³/s |
| stationId | Yes | |
| valueDivisor | No | Divide valueCentimeters by this to read in unit |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety. Beyond that, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: series are downsampled to ≤200 points and history is capped at 90 days with a 7-day default. These operational constraints would not be discoverable from the structured fields.
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 core constraints are front-loaded, but the Swiss-gauge / Neusiedler See aside and the valueCentimeters digression make the sentence dense and harder to scan. Information earns its place, but the packaging is heavy for a single paragraph.
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?
For a 4-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers depth, downsampling, units, and default type. Only the choice against sibling retrieval tools is left implicit.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what 'level' and 'discharge' actually mean, including unit semantics (centimetres above gauge zero, elevation ×100, divide by valueDivisor, m³/s), which the schema only labels.
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?
Opens with a specific resource and scope: 'Time series for a station', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_station, get_forecast and get_flood_situation. It does not explicitly name an alternative though, so it falls short of a 5.
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 description supplies useful contextual constraints (history depth 90 days on this tier, default 7 days, downsampling to ≤200 points) but never states when to choose this over get_forecast or search_stations. Usage is implied by the resource rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Master data of one station: measurement type, current value with its unit, thresholds (MNW/MHW, alert marks, as stored valueCentimeters), flood class, coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language for classification text (headline/description); defaults to German | |
| stationId | Yes | Namespaced station id, e.g. "pegelonline:<uuid>" or "lhp:BY_10026301" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| name | Yes | |
| unit | Yes | |
| water | Yes | |
| latitude | Yes | |
| longitude | Yes | |
| thresholds | Yes | |
| latestValue | Yes | Latest level, in `unit` |
| floodWarning | Yes | The river section warning this gauge inherits; it describes the reach, not the gauge |
| valueDivisor | Yes | Divide any valueCentimeters by this to read it in `unit` |
| measurementType | Yes | river | groundwater | sea_level | reservoir |
| latestMeasuredAt | Yes | |
| latestValueCentimeters | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds content context such as current value and thresholds, but does not describe behavior like data freshness, locale-dependent classification text, or error conditions.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with a compact list of fields and no filler. Minor awkwardness in 'as stored valueCentimeters' prevents a perfect score.
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?
Given the output schema, annotations, and complete input schema, the description provides an adequate high-level overview for a simple lookup. It lacks sibling differentiation, but that gap is already captured under usage_guidelines.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; stationId and locale are already documented with examples. The description only reinforces that this targets one station and does not add parameter-level detail.
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?
The description identifies the resource as a single station's master data and enumerates the returned fields: measurement type, current value with unit, thresholds, flood class, and coordinates. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as get_readings or search_stations.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. The phrase master data implies a category, but the agent is left to infer how this differs from get_forecast, get_readings, and get_flood_situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Daily weather forecast at the station coordinate (DWD data via Bright Sky).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stationId | Yes | Namespaced station id, e.g. "pegelonline:<uuid>" or "lhp:BY_10026301" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| daily | Yes | |
| available | Yes | False when the forecast provider is unreachable |
| stationId | Yes | |
| attribution | Yes | |
| stationName | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about daily granularity and the underlying data source (DWD via Bright Sky), but it does not disclose rate limits, caching, freshness, or other operational behavior beyond the annotations.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—daily granularity, station coordinate scope, and data source—earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, location basis, and data origin. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit sibling routing, which could matter when get_forecast is also present.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single stationId parameter already includes format examples in the schema. The description implies that the station id resolves to a coordinate used for the forecast, which adds a little meaning, but it provides no additional syntax, constraints, or edge-case handling beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific resource (daily weather forecast), scope (at the station coordinate), and data source (DWD data via Bright Sky). It is clear enough to distinguish from water-level siblings like get_readings or get_flood_situation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from get_forecast, so it falls short of a 5.
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 description says what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the six sibling tools. There is no indication of when to prefer get_weather over get_forecast or other forecast/observation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search stations in Germany and its neighbouring countries — river gauges, groundwater wells, reservoirs, coastal gauges — by name or water body, optionally filtered by region (a German federal state or a country code). latestValue is given in the station's unit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Station or water name, e.g. "Köln" or "Rhein" | |
| locale | No | Language for classification text (headline/description); defaults to German | |
| federalState | No | ISO 3166-2 code for a German state, e.g. DE-NW; CH, AT, CZ, LU or FR for a country |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | Present when the result was capped |
| stations | Yes | |
| totalMatches | Yes | Matches before the result cap |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable extra context beyond those annotations: the station types covered, the geographic scope, and a concrete output behavior note that 'latestValue is given in the station's unit.' No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, then covers scope, filters, and output behavior in logical order. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.
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?
With zero required parameters, 100% schema coverage, a rich output schema, and safety annotations already provided, the description covers the remaining essentials: what is searched, how it can be filtered, and a key output detail. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their examples. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond mentioning the optional regional filter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description leads with a specific verb and resource ('Search stations') and clarifies scope: river gauges, groundwater wells, reservoirs, coastal gauges in Germany and neighboring countries. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_station, which retrieves a single station, and get_readings, which retrieves measurement data.
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?
It clearly says when to use the tool: when searching by station or water-body name, with an optional regional filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the search-focused context is clear enough for an agent to select it over the more specific get_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_flood_situation1 field changedInput schema / properties / localeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Language for classification text (headline/description); defaults to German",
+ "enum": [
+ "de",
+ "en"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}get_station1 field changedInput schema / properties / localeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Language for classification text (headline/description); defaults to German",
+ "enum": [
+ "de",
+ "en"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}search_stations1 field changedInput schema / properties / localeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Language for classification text (headline/description); defaults to German",
+ "enum": [
+ "de",
+ "en"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}get_station2 fields changedOutput schema / properties / floodWarningAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "infoUrl": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "level": {
+ "description": "1 no particular vigilance … 4 exceptional flood",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "levelLabel": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "provider": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "providerLabel": {
+ "description": "Credit line of the warning service",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "publishedAt": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "sectionCode": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sectionName": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "provider",
+ "providerLabel",
+ "sectionCode",
+ "sectionName",
+ "level",
+ "levelLabel",
+ "publishedAt",
+ "infoUrl"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "The river section warning this gauge inherits; it describes the reach, not the gauge"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "water",
- "latitude",
- "longitude",
- "measurementType",
- "latestValue",
- "unit",
- "valueDivisor",
- "latestValueCentimeters",
- "latestMeasuredAt",
- "thresholds"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "water",
+ "latitude",
+ "longitude",
+ "measurementType",
+ "latestValue",
+ "unit",
+ "valueDivisor",
+ "latestValueCentimeters",
+ "latestMeasuredAt",
+ "thresholds",
+ "floodWarning"
+]search_stations2 fields changedOutput schema / properties / stations / items / properties / floodWarningAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "infoUrl": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "level": {
+ "description": "1 no particular vigilance … 4 exceptional flood",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "levelLabel": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "provider": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "providerLabel": {
+ "description": "Credit line of the warning service",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "publishedAt": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "sectionCode": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sectionName": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "provider",
+ "providerLabel",
+ "sectionCode",
+ "sectionName",
+ "level",
+ "levelLabel",
+ "publishedAt",
+ "infoUrl"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "The river section warning this gauge inherits; it describes the reach, not the gauge"
+}Output schema / properties / stations / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "water",
- "federalState",
- "measurementType",
- "latestValue",
- "unit",
- "latestValueCentimeters",
- "lhpClass"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "water",
+ "federalState",
+ "measurementType",
+ "latestValue",
+ "unit",
+ "latestValueCentimeters",
+ "lhpClass",
+ "floodWarning"
+]search_stations1 field changedInput schema / properties / federalState / descriptionPrevious value: -"ISO 3166-2 code for a German state, e.g. DE-NW; CH, AT or CZ for a country"New value: +"ISO 3166-2 code for a German state, e.g. DE-NW; CH, AT, CZ, LU or FR for a country"search_stations2 fields changedInput schema / properties / federalState / descriptionPrevious value: -"ISO 3166-2 code for a German state, e.g. DE-NW; CH or AT for a country"New value: +"ISO 3166-2 code for a German state, e.g. DE-NW; CH, AT or CZ for a country"Output schema / properties / stations / items / properties / unit / descriptionPrevious value: -"cm for rivers; m ü. NN / m ü. M. for wells and Swiss gauges"New value: +"cm over gauge zero; m ü. NN for wells; the datum unit (m ü. M., m ü. A.) for gauges reporting an absolute elevation"get_flood_situationget_forecastget_readingsget_stationget_weathersearch_stationsReal-time water levels and flow rates from USGS stream gauges
Access UK flood warnings, river levels, water quality, Met Office forecasts, and carbon data
River levels & flood alerts: USGS gauges. $0.01/query. Register in-session — free testnet funds.
German land values (Bodenrichtwerte) by address + land-use type. Coverage varies; not in SH/SN/BY.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.