Skip to main content
Glama

LiveDataLink

by io.github.blackboxfoundry

epa_water_or_air_violations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report a facility's air (Clean Air Act) or water (Clean Water Act / Safe Drinking Water Act) violations and the related compliance summaries. Set media to 'air', 'water', or 'all'. Requires an EPA Registry ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mediaNoWhich media to report: 'air', 'water', or 'all' (default 'all').
registry_idYesEPA Registry ID (FRS ID), the numeric facility identifier returned by epa_facility_search (e.g. '110001136271').

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds useful context by scoping the output to violations plus compliance summaries filtered by media. It does not disclose output format, pagination, or data caveats, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter instruction and prerequisite are conveyed efficiently without redundancy.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with fully documented schemas, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly: the required registry_id, the three media choices, and the expected scope of results. The absence of an output schema and lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools are minor gaps, not blocking issues.

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%, with registry_id and media already fully described in the input schema. The description largely restates the schema ('Set media to...', 'Requires an EPA Registry ID') and adds no new semantic information beyond it.

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 description clearly states the tool's function: reporting a facility's air or water violations and related compliance summaries, with the relevant statutes named. It identifies the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like epa_facility_compliance or epa_facility_details.

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?

The description provides a prerequisite ('Requires an EPA Registry ID') and tells the agent how to set the media parameter ('air', 'water', or 'all'). It does not explain when to prefer this tool over the similar EPA facility tools or provide exclusion criteria, leaving the choice among siblings implicit.

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

All LiveDataLink toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap heavily across domains: caselaw_search vs court_case_search vs court_opinion_search, caselaw_citation_lookup vs court_citation_resolver, and a cluster of company due-diligence tools (company_trust_check, counterparty_risk_score, entity_dossier, issuer_diligence_dossier, kyb_aml_evidence_case_file) that all screen a company for sanctions/risk/standing. With 290 tools, an agent will frequently face multiple equally plausible choices for the same user intent.

Naming Consistency3/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clean domain-prefix + snake_case pattern (census_, eia_, fmcsa_, npi_, cfpb_, etc.), but there are notable exceptions: entity_resolve and resolve_entity are reversed duplicates, reg_search (Federal Register) sits next to reg_cfr_search (CFR) with confusingly similar names, and carrier_monitor_recheck deviates from the carrier_vetting_* family.

Tool Count1/5

290 tools is an extreme count under any rubric, far exceeding even the 50+ threshold for the lowest score. While the group-filtering mechanism and meta-tools like list_tool_groups and search_available_datasets mitigate the practical burden, the raw surface is still massively oversized for an agent to select from accurately and efficiently.

Completeness4/5

For a read-only data-aggregation server, coverage is remarkably comprehensive across 59 domains, and generic fallbacks like cdc_dataset_query, eia_series_lookup, fred_observations, and bls_series prevent most dead ends. Minor gaps exist (a single GitHub tool, demo-only property_lookup coverage, no write/update operations anywhere), but the stated data-access purpose is well served.

Resources