Skip to main content
Glama

earthquakes

Recent earthquakes recorded by IPMA.

Args: region: "mainland" (mainland Portugal and Madeira) or "azores". days: look back this many days (max 30). min_magnitude: only quakes at or above this magnitude. limit: max rows (newest first).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "earthquakes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo
limitNo
regionNomainland
min_magnitudeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a real constraint (days max 30) and ordering behavior (rows returned newest first), which is valuable. It says nothing about return shape, empty-result behavior, or whether results are cached/live beyond 'recent', leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and each parameter line is one clause with no filler. The 'Args:' docstring formatting is slightly mechanical but costs almost nothing in length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All four parameters are explained despite 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The main residual gap is the absence of any safety/read-only statement, though the tool is self-evidently a read query.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: region gets its two allowed values with a parenthetical covering Madeira, days gets a max of 30, min_magnitude is defined as a lower bound, and limit is defined as a row cap with newest-first ordering. It stops short of syntax details (e.g., decimal precision) and does not repeat the schema defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first line gives a specific resource and source: recent earthquakes recorded by IPMA. There is no direct sibling conflict among the listed tools, so no cross-tool differentiation is required, but the description does not state geographic coverage limits beyond the region parameter.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter list (look back N days, filter by magnitude, cap rows), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named. An agent can infer it is a query tool for seismic events, but nothing more.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.