SiteCheck Company Records

US EPA Air Quality System certified monitor data

gov_epa_aqs_air_quality

Read-only

US EPA Air Quality System certified monitor data for a county: daily values per monitor (mean, daily max, AQI, method, site) or annual summaries (mean, 98th/99th percentiles, exceedance counts) for PM2.5, PM10, ozone, NO2, SO2, CO or lead. County by name or FIPS code. Official quality-assured data, published about six months after measurement. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "state": "<state>",
      "county": "<county>"
    },
    "name": "gov_epa_aqs_air_quality"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Daily mode end date YYYY-MM-DD, same calendar year, max 31 days after from
`from`	No	Daily mode start date YYYY-MM-DD (data lags ~6 months)
`year`	No	Annual mode: a year such as 2025 (returns annual summaries instead of daily values)
`limit`	No	Max rows 1-500 (default 100)
`state`	Yes	2-letter state, e.g. CA
`county`	Yes	County name (Los Angeles) or 3-digit FIPS code (037)
`pollutant`	No	pm25 (default), pm10, ozone, no2, so2, co, lead

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No
`from`	No
`mode`	No
`note`	No
`rows`	No
`count`	No
`state`	No
`total`	No
`county`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`pollutant`	No
`countyFips`	No
`parameterCode`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the six-month publication lag, official quality-assured provenance, and a precise cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call, failed calls not charged) including accepted payment networks. It does not mention rate limits or row caps beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its two modes, then geography, freshness, and price, with no filler sentences. Minor redundancy in re-listing all seven pollutants and the county-name/FIPS option that the schema already enumerates.

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?

For a seven-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide to call it: data scope, mode selection, geographic keying, data freshness, and billing. Return-field details are partially enumerated and the rest is covered by the output schema.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the 31-day window, the 1-500 limit, and the pm25 default. The description mostly restates the enum pollutant list and the county name/FIPS option already present in the schema; its only added framing is the daily-vs-annual mode split, which the schema also conveys.

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 resource and provider (US EPA Air Quality System certified monitor data) and pins down the two output modes (daily values per monitor vs annual summaries) plus the geography granularity (county by name or FIPS). An agent can distinguish it from data-portal siblings like gov_data_gov or gov_healthdata without opening the schema.

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?

States the mode-selection condition implicitly and clearly: daily values need a date range, annual summaries need a year, and 'published about six months after measurement' plus 'certified/quality-assured' signals this is not a real-time AQI source. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records tools Inspect

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

Need Help?