DataQuoll

Observed record and declared status for an exact point

hazard_history_by_point

Read-only

What official sources recorded near a location, unioned with the disaster declarations that covered its local government area. Two lanes are returned because both are required: the observed lane (historical archive plus live-era incident history within a radius) and the declared lane (declarations for the covering ABS LGA, counted once per AGRN even when several authorities recorded the same event). Measured example: a Lismore address returns the February 2022 flood only through the declared lane, because the spatial lane holds no record for it at address precision. POST with a JSON body is used deliberately so coordinates never appear in URLs or request logs; the request is read-only and safe to retry. Coordinates are never stored, logged, or echoed back, and the response is Cache-Control: no-store. This reports a RECORD and a declared STATUS. It is not an assessment of risk, insurability, or any obligation, and absence of a record is not evidence that nothing happened. Precision is reported per record: a record at postcode precision sits at a postcode centroid, which can be kilometres from the event.

Requires the "hazard-history" entitlement on the API key. Accounts without it get a clear error rather than an empty result, so an empty response never means "not entitled".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lat`	Yes	Latitude in decimal degrees, -90 to 90. Never logged or echoed.
`lng`	Yes	Longitude in decimal degrees, -180 to 180. Never logged or echoed.
`records`	No	Maximum observed records returned in the list. Aggregates always cover everything in radius. 1 to 100, defaults to 25.
`radiusKm`	No	Search radius for the observed lane, greater than 0 and no more than 5. Defaults to 1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the POST body design, that coordinates are never stored/logged/echoed, Cache-Control: no-store, the required hazard-history entitlement, the no-record-is-not-evidence caveat, and per-record precision. All of this is consistent with the readOnlyHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured into logical details: lanes, example, HTTP behavior, privacy, limits, and entitlement. It is longer than average, and a few caveats are restated, but the density is high for a complex tool.

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?

With no output schema and only a read-only annotation, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back: two lanes, AGRN deduplication, declared status, and precision. It also covers auth, retry safety, privacy, and disclaimers, making the endpoint fully usable by an agent.

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 input schema already describes every parameter, including bounds and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema says; it mostly contextualizes the two lanes, which is return behavior rather than parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific purpose—'Observed record and declared status for an exact point'—and then details exactly what is returned: an observed lane of historical/live incident records within a radius and a declared lane of LGA disaster declarations. This clearly distinguishes it from point/incident-only siblings like nearby_incidents or declarations_by_point.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear context is provided: the tool is for exact coordinates, combines two required lanes, and is safe to retry because it is read-only. It even gives a concrete use example (Lismore flood via declared lane) and notes it is not a risk/insurability assessment, but it never explicitly names sibling tools or states when to choose another endpoint.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DataQuoll tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?