Emergency Victoria public incidents feed.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct query mode: basic listing, extended listing with keyword filter, and geographic proximity. The main overlap is between 'incidents' and 'incidents_all', which both return current incidents and differ mainly by count and filter capability, but the descriptions make the distinction clear enough.
'incidents' and 'incidents_all' share a consistent prefix pattern, but 'near_postcode' uses a completely different prepositional/geographic construction. The set is small and readable, yet the conventions are mixed rather than following a predictable verb_noun or resource_action pattern.
Three tools for a single data source (Emergency Victoria incidents) is lean but justifiable: basic listing, extended listing, and geo search each add value. It sits just above the 'thin' threshold with no superfluous tools.
Core retrieval patterns (list, filtered list, proximity search) are covered, but there is no way to fetch a single incident by ID or filter by incident type/severity/time window. These gaps limit deeper investigation workflows an agent might attempt.
FREE. Current Emergency Victoria incidents (first 5).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: the call is free (no auth/cost) and results are truncated to five records. It says nothing about freshness cadence, data source, or what happens if fewer than five incidents exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short fragments, zero waste, with the key scope constraint ('first 5') front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it returns and how many. Return-field details are absent, but the description isn't obligated to reproduce a schema that doesn't exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a concrete resource and scope: current Emergency Victoria incidents, capped at five. 'First 5' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling incidents_all, though it never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The 'first 5' cap implies this is a quick preview and that incidents_all exists for the full set, but the agent must infer that routing decision rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
PRO. Up to 100 Emergency Victoria incidents, optional keyword filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | No | ||
| access_token | No | Subscriber token from /success (or Authorization: Bearer) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one real behavioral trait: results are capped at 100. It does not say whether that cap truncates silently, whether results are ordered, or what the PRO/subscriber requirement means operationally beyond the access_token note in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact fragments with the resource and cap front-loaded and zero filler. The unexplained 'PRO.' prefix is the only piece of text that doesn't clearly earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-required-parameter read tool this covers the basics, but with no annotations, no output schema, and an unexplained 100-result cap, an agent still lacks enough to predict truncation behavior or the shape of returned incidents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: access_token is documented in the schema, while 'keyword' has no schema description. The description only adds that the keyword filter is optional; it doesn't say what fields the keyword matches against or how matching works, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the resource ('Emergency Victoria incidents') with a result cap and an optional filter, so the agent knows it retrieves a bounded incident list. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling 'incidents' tool, and the 'PRO' marker is never explained, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'PRO' hints at a subscription gate but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer 'incidents' or 'near_postcode'. The agent must infer the selection logic from the sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
PRO. Incidents within ~50 km of a Victorian postcode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postcode | Yes | ||
| access_token | No | Subscriber token from /success (or Authorization: Bearer) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the approximate radius and Victorian postcode filter, but omits whether the operation is read-only, auth requirements beyond the schema field, rate limits, result ordering, pagination, and what the returned incidents contain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded fragment with no filler, which is appropriately concise. The unexplained 'PRO.' prefix adds ambiguity rather than useful structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, an output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete for an agent deciding between near_postcode, incidents, and incidents_all. It says enough to identify a geospatial incident query but not enough to call it confidently or understand expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: access_token is documented in the schema, while postcode is not. The description adds useful meaning by indicating that the postcode must be Victorian and that results are within ~50 km, but it does not specify postcode format or add token semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the resource (incidents) and a specific spatial scope (within ~50 km of a Victorian postcode), so an agent can identify the core operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tools incidents and incidents_all, and the leading 'PRO.' label is unexplained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use near_postcode instead of incidents or incidents_all, nor any stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the spatial wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
incidentsincidents_allnear_postcodeNSW Rural Fire Service major fire incidents.
Australian data as MCP tools: incidents, gauges, declarations, calendars, police releases, archive.
Free live public-safety incident map: global crime, fire, disaster, weather and news feeds
Public hazard, water, weather and EPA data with source, age and licence on every reading.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.