SiteCheck Trade & Energy

EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program reported emissions

energy_epa_flight_emissions

Read-only

EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) reported emissions for one facility by year, from EPA Envirofacts (CO2e summed across gases per year, as published). Uses the GHGRP facility id (e.g. 1000001). Facility search and sector breakdowns are not included. Related tools on this server, for a different need: energy_epa_echo_enforcement when you need EPA ECHO summary for one US state: counts of active; 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": {
      "facilityId": "<facilityId>"
    },
    "name": "energy_epa_flight_emissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`facilityId`	Yes	GHGRP facility id, digits only, e.g. 1000001

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`years`	No
`source`	No
`rowCount`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`facilityId`	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?

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses the upstream source, the CO2e aggregation method, the requirement to already know a facility id, and the commercial model ('$0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged'). Pricing and billing behavior are not in structured data, so that is real added value.

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 sentence and the exclusion are well front-loaded, but the sibling-routing sentences are truncated and read as fragments ('counts of active;', 'from EPA's public.'), which wastes space and reduces clarity. The pricing sentence is long but earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained; the description covers source, aggregation, id requirement, and cost. The phrase 'by year' is mildly ambiguous since facilityId is the only parameter — it is unclear whether the tool returns all years or a single period.

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?

Coverage is 100% and the schema already documents facilityId, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning by noting the id must be a known GHGRP facility and that facility lookup is not available, telling the agent it cannot resolve a name to an id here — a constraint the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('reported emissions for one facility by year'), names the program and upstream source (EPA GHGRP via Envirofacts), and explains the aggregation semantics ('CO2e summed across gases per year, as published'). It also states what the tool does not do ('Facility search and sector breakdowns are not included'), which separates it from other EPA-related siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes two related-but-different needs to energy_epa_echo_enforcement and energy_biofuel_rin_credits_epa, and rules out facility search / sector breakdowns. It stops short of saying which tool to use when facility search is needed, so the exclusion is stated without a named destination.

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?