Real-time USGS river/stream flow and flood data. Gauge height, discharge, percentiles by state.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "water_levels"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | 2-letter state code | |
| parameter_code | No | USGS param code, default 00060 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavior. It describes the tool as returning real-time data, which implies a read operation, but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or whether the data is cached. This is adequate for a simple query tool.
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 concise sentence that includes the source (USGS), data types (gauge height, discharge, percentiles), and scope (by state). No unnecessary words.
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 query tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (gauge height, discharge, percentiles). It could mention the response format or if filtering by state is mandatory, but overall it is sufficient.
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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds 'by state' which aligns with the state parameter but does not elaborate on parameter_code or provide additional context 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 clearly states it provides real-time USGS river/stream flow data including gauge height, discharge, and percentiles by state. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tide_data or marine_conditions by specifying 'river/stream' data.
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 guidance on when to use versus alternatives like tide_data or weather_alerts. The description implies a context (USGS water data by state), but lacks when-not or alternative tool suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.