get_gaugeReturns a single gauge station plus its trailing 6 hours of raw readings (enough to see the current trend). Deeper history is the tier-gated /gauges/{id}/readings endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Gauge id from /gauges (e.g. hydstra-nsw-410001) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the 6-hour recent window and raw readings, which goes beyond the annotation. It does not describe response structure or pagination, but for a simple read-only tool this is acceptable.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior, and the second provides a relevant pointer to the deeper-history endpoint. Every sentence 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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is returned, the time window, and where to obtain deeper history. It lacks field-level response detail, but that is not required for correct invocation. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.
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% for the single id parameter, including a concrete example ('hydstra-nsw-410001'). The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('a single gauge station'), and a specific scope ('trailing 6 hours of raw readings'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from list_gauges (multiple stations) and get_gauge_summary (summary rather than raw readings).
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 explicitly points to the /gauges/{id}/readings endpoint for deeper history, creating a clear when-not-to-use boundary. It implies usage for checking the current trend ('enough to see the current trend'), but does not enumerate all alternative siblings such as get_gauge_summary.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions are detailed enough to separate declaration lookups, hazard history, incidents, events, and gauges. A couple of pairs could still be confused at first glance, such as declarations_by_point vs hazard_history_by_point or list_events vs list_incidents, but the descriptions resolve the boundaries.
The naming largely follows a clear get_/list_ convention for single resources versus collections, with lookup-style names like declarations_by_point and declarations_by_postcode. Minor deviations such as incident_snapshot, nearby_incidents, and the singular declaration_by_agrn prevent a perfect score.
19 tools is on the heavier side, but the count is justified by the broad domain covering current incidents, historical incidents, clustered events, declarations, river gauges, hazard history, schema discovery, attribution, and feed health. Each tool appears to earn its place, though the set is larger than the ideal 3-15 range for a tightly scoped server.
The surface is remarkably complete for a read-only emergency/disaster data API: current and historical incidents, event clustering, incident snapshots, nearby queries, declaration lookups by multiple keys, gauge readings and summaries, hazard history, schema enums, attribution, and source feed status are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated domain.