Skip to main content
Glama

fcc-broadband-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Find Underserved Areas

fcc_find_underserved
Read-onlyIdempotent

Finds geographic areas with limited or no broadband coverage at a given speed threshold, ranked by unserved population. The core tool for BEAD program analysis and broadband equity research. Accepts a state abbreviation to narrow scope or runs nationwide. Defaults to rural areas where underservice is most concentrated. Data is from FCC Form 477 (as of June 2021).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of areas to return, ranked by unserved population (descending).
stateNo2-letter USPS state or territory code (e.g., "WY", "MS", "PR") to limit scope. An unrecognized code is rejected, not ignored. Omit for nationwide search — returns top areas only.
speed_downNoDownload speed threshold in Mbps for defining "underserved." 25 = FCC legacy standard. 100 = BEAD program standard.25
tech_filterNoTechnology filter. "acfosw" = any wired or fixed wireless. "f" = fiber only. "c" = cable only.acfosw
geography_typeNoGeographic granularity for results. "county" is most useful for policy analysis and BEAD eligibility. "cd" = congressional district. "place" = census-designated place. "cbsa" = metro area.county
min_unserved_popNoMinimum population with no coverage to include. Defaults to 1, which keeps fully covered areas out of a ranking of underserved ones. Set to 0 to rank every area regardless of unserved population, or higher to drop small gaps (e.g., 500 keeps only areas with at least 500 unserved residents).
urban_rural_filterNoDefaults to rural ("R") — where underservice is most concentrated. Use "U" to find underserved urban areas (digital redlining research). Set to "all" for both.R

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
capNoThe limit that was applied. Present when truncated.
areasNoRanked list of underserved areas.
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
shownNoNumber of areas returned after applying the limit. Present when truncated.
noticeNoGuidance about the result set — how to broaden the filters when nothing matched, and how to narrow the query when the upstream scan hit its row ceiling. Absent when neither applies.
truncatedNoTrue when more areas matched than the limit returned. Absent when not truncated.
scanRowCapNoRaw upstream row ceiling that bound the scan. Present only when scanTruncated is true.
totalFoundNoTotal number of areas found before applying the limit filter.
dataVintageNoData vintage — Form 477 data as of June 2021.
geographyTypeNoGeography type returned.
scanTruncatedNoTrue when the upstream row scan stopped at its ceiling before reaching the end of the matching data, so totalFound and the ranking cover only the portion that was scanned. Absent when the scan read every matching row.
speedDownMbpsNoSpeed threshold used in Mbps.
appliedFiltersNoFilters applied to this query.
urbanRuralFilterNoUrban/rural filter applied.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the data source (FCC Form 477 as of June 2021) and the default rural focus, which clarifies the scope of results. It also implies the ranking order. While it does not mention pagination or output structure, the presence of an output schema covers that. The description enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 four sentences, tightly packed with actionable information. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by scope options, default behavior, and data provenance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy. The structure leads with the core function, making it easy for an agent to quickly determine applicability.

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 tool with seven parameters (all optional), an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the tool's role, scope control (state or nationwide), defaults (rural, speed threshold), and data source. It does not explicitly describe the result format or pagination, but the output schema presumably covers that. The missing piece is a mention of how results are ranked, though that is stated in the first sentence. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces some defaults (e.g., rural areas) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, the BEAD standard for speed_down is already documented in the schema's parameter description. The description does not clarify parameter relationships or provide new syntax. It adds marginal value, but insufficient to raise the score above the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Finds geographic areas with limited or no broadband coverage at a given speed threshold, ranked by unserved population.' It explicitly identifies itself as 'The core tool for BEAD program analysis and broadband equity research,' which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like fcc_compare_areas or fcc_get_coverage_summary. The purpose is unambiguous and operational.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use: it is framed as the core tool for BEAD program analysis and equity research. It also states scope behavior: 'Accepts a state abbreviation to narrow scope or runs nationwide' and notes the rural default. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for specific conditions, nor state when NOT to use this tool. This is slightly weaker than naming a sibling, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly in most scenarios.

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

All fcc-broadband-mcp-server 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: geocoding, availability lookup, provider search, provider details, coverage summaries, area comparisons, underserved analysis, data version listing, and file downloads. No two tools have overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the `fcc_` prefix plus a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., `fcc_geocode_block`, `fcc_search_availability`, `fcc_list_downloads`). Naming is consistent snake_case with a predictable structure.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for a domain-specific data server. Each tool earns its place, covering the core workflow of geocoding, availability, provider lookup, coverage analysis, and data file access without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the essential lifecycle: geocode → search availability, search providers → get provider, coverage summaries, comparisons, and data file discovery. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct address search, but geocoding prerequisites handle it), but the surface is comprehensive for FCC broadband analysis.

Resources