Get recent earthquakes worldwide with magnitude, location, depth, and tsunami flag. Source: USGS FDSN Event Web Service (public-domain, unlimited, no key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look back days (1-30, default 7) | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 20) | |
| minmagnitude | No | Minimum magnitude (default 0) |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source, public-domain status, unlimited usage, and no key requirement—useful operational context. It also lists the returned fields (magnitude, location, depth, tsunami flag), but does not cover pagination, output format, or any potential quirks. This exceeds baseline for a simple read-only tool.
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: the first states the function, the second provides the source and access details. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 read-only tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the source, access constraints, and key output fields. Missing details like exact format of location and timezone could be considered gaps, but the overall context is sufficient for appropriate use.
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%, with clear parameter descriptions for days, limit, and minmagnitude. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 the tool's function: 'Get recent earthquakes worldwide with magnitude, location, depth, and tsunami flag.' It uses a specific verb, identifies the resource, and lists key output fields, making it easily distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which relate to earthquakes.
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 implies use for earthquake data by naming the USGS FDSN Event Web Service as the source, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. With no direct sibling earthquake tool, the need for differentiation is low, but explicit usage conditions are missing.
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.
Several tool groups have overlapping purposes: fda_drug_labels vs health_drug_search, fda_recalls vs health_recalls, fx_official_rates vs treasury_fx_rates, treasury_debt vs us_debt_current, and get_gdp vs get_bea_gdp. These near-duplicates create real ambiguity for an agent deciding which tool to call.
Names mix verb-led styles (get_, search_, compare_, screen_) with domain-led styles (fx_, treasury_, uk_, health_, eurostat_, datausa_). Within the same domain, similar actions use different patterns (get_gdp vs eurostat_gdp vs imf_indicator), making the set feel inconsistent and hard to predict.
75 tools is extreme for any MCP server, especially when many tools are redundant or cover unrelated domains (weather, earthquakes, scholarly search, air quality) outside the stated SEC/economics/demographics/FX focus. This overwhelms agents and burdens context windows.
Core domains like SEC financials, major economic indicators, basic demographics, and current FX rates are well covered. However, gaps remain: no historical FX rates, no stock price/quote tool, limited demographic breakdowns, and no ability to fetch full SEC filing text. Some operations end in dead ends.