Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GISDB

by io.gisdb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

audit_fema_flood_hazard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit a property against the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) to detect Special Flood Hazard Areas (Zone A/AE/VE), FIRM panels, base flood elevation, mandatory flood insurance encumbrances, and calculate Board-admissible external obsolescence appraisal deductions (Exhibit F).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "parcel_id": "<parcel_id>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "audit_fema_flood_hazard"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoOptional latitude
lonNoOptional longitude
countyNoCounty name (e.g. Hamilton, Knox, Davidson)
formatNoOutput format: 'json' (default) or 'html' for ready-to-file Exhibit F
addressYesProperty situs address
parcel_idYesSubject parcel ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the description's job is to add domain behavior — and it does, disclosing the specific determinations made and that it computes a Board-admissible external obsolescence deduction (Exhibit F). It stops short of describing failure modes, which is acceptable given full annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the audit target before listing deliverables; no filler. It is on the heavy side for one sentence, but every clause contributes a distinct capability rather than restating the name.

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?

For a six-parameter audit tool with no output schema, the description explains what is checked but not what the response contains — no mention of how results are structured, what happens when optional lat/lon or county are omitted, or how the deduction is derived. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter meaning is already carried by the schema, including the 'html'/'json' format option. The description references Exhibit F, which maps loosely to the format parameter, but adds no syntax, defaults, or precedence rules (e.g. how lat/lon interact with the required address/parcel_id).

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?

Names a specific verb (audit) and a specific external resource (FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer) and enumerates concrete outputs: SFHA zones A/AE/VE, FIRM panels, base flood elevation, and insurance encumbrances. The flood-hazard focus cleanly separates it from nearby parcel-data siblings such as topography, soil capability, or storm swaths.

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 purpose implies when to reach for it (flood-zone screening or appraisal deduction work), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for related parcel checks. An agent must infer the triggering conditions from the task description alone.

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

All GISDB toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources