SiteCheck Trade & Energy

EPA ECHO summary for one US state: counts of active

energy_epa_echo_enforcement

Read-only

EPA ECHO (Enforcement and Compliance History Online) summary for one US state: counts of active facilities, inspections, formal enforcement actions and total penalties, from the ECHO REST service. Facility-level violation lists are not included. Related tools on this server, for a different need: energy_epa_flight_emissions when you need EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program reported emissions; energy_biofuel_rin_credits_epa when you need US EPA Renewable Fuel Standard RIN data from EPA's public. 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>"
    },
    "name": "energy_epa_echo_enforcement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	Yes	US state, 2-letter code, e.g. TX

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`echoVersion`	No
`enforcement`	No
`inspections`	No
`cleanAirRecords`	No
`activeFacilities`	No
`cleanWaterRecords`	No
`totalPenaltiesUsd`	No
`toxicReleaseRecords`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real context beyond them: the upstream data source (ECHO REST service), the fact that results are aggregated counts rather than records, and an explicit cost/charging model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failed calls not charged). It does not disclose data freshness/lag or rate limits, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded and clear, but the description crams scope, exclusions, two tangential sibling references, and a long payment-mechanics clause into a single dense paragraph. The 'Related tools ... for a different need' sentence adds modest routing value relative to its length, and the pricing sentence is verbose boilerplate repeated across the server.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only aggregate query with an output schema present, the description covers source, scope, exclusions, and cost—everything needed to call it correctly. The only material omissions are data recency/update cadence and any indication of geographic coverage limits within a state, which are minor given the output schema exists.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('US state, 2-letter code, e.g. TX'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description implies the state scoping but adds no format, casing, or validation detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific source (EPA ECHO / Enforcement and Compliance History Online), a specific scope (one US state), and enumerates exactly what is returned: counts of active facilities, inspections, formal enforcement actions, and total penalties. It also states what is NOT returned (facility-level violation lists), which lets an agent distinguish it from any facility-detail tool 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?

It gives an explicit exclusion ('Facility-level violation lists are not included') and routes to two named siblings with the condition that selects them ('when you need EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program reported emissions', 'when you need RIN data'). However, those siblings serve a different data domain rather than being true alternatives for the same enforcement need, so there is no guidance on which tool to pick if an agent actually wants facility-level compliance detail.

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

All SiteCheck Trade & Energy 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?