Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

epa-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Superfund Site

epa_superfund_get_site
Read-onlyIdempotent

Superfund: Retrieve a site by exact SEMS site ID from epa_superfund_search_sites, with all recorded contaminant associations and their media, operable units, and EPA actions. Repeated chemicals in different contexts and duplicate source rows are retained. An existing site without contaminant records returns an empty array. Associations do not establish current exposure, concentrations, or current risk. Site and contaminant requests share a 50-second deadline.

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>"
    },
    "name": "epa_superfund_get_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idYesSEMS siteId from epa_superfund_search_sites; preserve leading zeros

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNoSuperfund site record with source status and assessment metadata
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
contaminantsNoEvery SEMS contaminant association for the site; empty when none are recorded

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / error / properties / data / properties / reason / description
      Previous value: -"Machine-readable failure mode. Declared by this tool: `site_not_found`: No SEMS site matches the exact ID. Other values are possible when a failure originates below the handler."New value: +"Machine-readable failure mode. Declared by this tool: `site_not_found`: No SEMS site matches the exact ID. `unmatchable_filter`: site_id holds a character EPA's DMAP service cannot match exactly. `filter_too_long`: site_id makes a request longer than EPA's DMAP service accepts. Other values are possible when a failure originates below the handler."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / error / properties / data / properties / reason / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  "site_not_found"
-]New value: +[
+  "site_not_found",
+  "unmatchable_filter",
+  "filter_too_long"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: discloses that duplicate source rows and repeated chemicals are retained, that an existing site with no contaminant records yields an empty array, that associations do not imply current exposure or risk, and that site and contaminant requests share a 50-second deadline. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the verb and required input, then layers caveats in short declarative sentences; every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return shape need not be described; the description covers provenance of the ID, edge-case returns, data-quality caveats, and the latency constraint, leaving no material gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by emphasizing the exact-match semantics and referencing the source tool for the ID, though leading-zero preservation is only in the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource (retrieve a site by exact SEMS site ID) and explicitly ties the ID to the sibling epa_superfund_search_sites, so the agent can distinguish it from the search tool without opening a 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?

Clearly states where the site_id comes from (epa_superfund_search_sites) and the exact-match requirement, which effectively tells the agent to search first. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or what alternatives exist beyond search, so it falls 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 epa-mcp-server toolsInspect
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