Basinwise
Server Details
Determines which NPDES stormwater permit governs a US site and its requirements, cited to source.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of NPDES compliance: permit determination, credential verification, detailed requirements, usage tracking, and jurisdiction listing. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., determine_permit, list_jurisdictions), making them predictable and easy to differentiate.
With 5 tools covering core informational needs for stormwater permit compliance, the count feels well-scoped and neither excessive nor insufficient for the server's purpose.
The tool set covers permit determination, credential gates, requirements, and jurisdiction data. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to retrieve raw permit text, but the provided tools return derived requirements, making the surface sufficiently complete for practical use.
Available Tools
5 toolsdetermine_permitDetermine which stormwater permit governs a siteARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Determine which NPDES stormwater permit governs a construction or industrial site, and what that permit requires of it. Returns coverage ("required", "not_required" or "verify") with the reason, the governing permit and the version the answer was computed against, the jurisdiction and its permitting authority, the permit's eligibility screens, the requirements that attach to THIS site (each with the permit section it came from and a because explaining why it applies here rather than in general), the step-by-step derivation, and notices. ALWAYS surface notices verbatim to the user: it carries the preparer-credential warning, any coverage gap, and the fact that we do not perform the physical site inspections the permit requires. Deterministic, no model in the path. Requirements come back ONLY where we hold the governing permit's rules; where a state permit is identified but unread, requirements is empty and a notice says so rather than substituting the federal permit's numbers, so never treat an empty list as "nothing required". Free, no API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| acres | No | Alias for disturbedAcres. | |
| state | Yes | Two-letter state, territory or DC code, e.g. "CA". | |
| endDate | No | ISO yyyy-mm-dd. Recorded on the determination. | |
| activity | Yes | Required. Construction and industrial sites are governed by different permits and neither is assumed. "industrial" returns coverage "verify": EPA's Multi-Sector General Permit expired on 28 February 2026 and new operators cannot currently obtain coverage. | |
| startDate | No | ISO yyyy-mm-dd. Recorded on the determination. | |
| sectorCode | No | MSGP industrial sector code. Industrial sites only. | |
| aridClimate | No | Arid, semi-arid or drought-stricken area, which may allow a reduced inspection frequency during the seasonally dry period. | |
| onTribalLand | No | EPA retains NPDES authority in Indian country even inside a state that runs its own programme. | |
| disturbedAcres | No | TOTAL acres the project will disturb over its life. This is what the 1-acre coverage threshold is measured against. `acres` is accepted as an alias. | |
| federalFacility | No | EPA's permit covers federal facilities in some delegated states. | |
| partOfLargerPlan | No | Whether the project is part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Defaults to false. Send it explicitly: a half-acre lot inside a 40-acre subdivision IS covered, and this is the most commonly missed trigger in the permit. | |
| dischargesToTier2Water | No | Discharges to a Tier 2, 2.5 or 3 water. Same tri-state handling as dischargesToImpairedWater. | |
| dischargesToImpairedWater | No | Discharges to a sediment or nutrient impaired water. OMIT IT if you do not know: it is never assumed false, and the determination reports the answer as unknown instead. It changes both the inspection frequency and the stabilisation deadline. | |
| maxDisturbedAcresAtOneTime | No | Greatest acreage disturbed AT ANY ONE TIME. A different quantity from disturbedAcres, and the one the stabilisation deadline actually turns on (2022 CGP Table 2): a project over five acres in total still gets the longer 14-day deadline if it phases the work so no more than five acres are open at once. OMIT IT if you do not know, and the determination assumes an unphased site and says so, rather than asserting phasing it was not told about. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description extensively discloses behaviors: returns specific fields (coverage, reason, governing permit, etc.), notes that notices must be shown verbatim, explains behavior when permit rules are missing (empty requirements), and declares determinism and no cost. Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, and description adds valuable context.
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 relatively long but well-structured, starting with the purpose and then detailing outputs and caveats. While some sentences are verbose, the organization aids clarity and the content is valuable.
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?
With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values and important caveats. It covers edge cases (empty requirements, perennial determination) and usage notes. The 14 parameters are well-documented in the schema, and the description adds sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already details parameters. The description adds value by explaining the significance of key parameters (e.g., activity=industrial returns coverage 'verify') and context like the 1-acre threshold and phasing nuances.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Determine which NPDES stormwater permit governs a construction or industrial site, and what that permit requires of it.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_requirements or list_jurisdictions.
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?
The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no 'use this when' statement. However, the description implies it is the primary permit determination tool, and the sibling list provides context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_credential_gateDoes this state need a credentialed plan preparer?ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Whether a state requires a credentialed preparer (California's Qualified SWPPP Developer, and the analogous credential elsewhere) to prepare or sign a stormwater pollution prevention plan, and whether that requirement bites for a site of this size. This is the answer that decides whether a generated document is the operator's deliverable or a DRAFT for a credentialed person to review and sign, so documentStatus states that consequence in plain language on every response. gate is "open", "gated", "conditional" or "unknown"; a state we have not verified returns "unknown" and must never be treated as open. appliesToThisSite is null when the trigger is an acreage threshold you did not give acres for, or a plan-scope test we cannot resolve from site facts. Free, no API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| acres | No | Acres disturbed. Optional but worth sending: several states gate only above an acreage threshold, and without it a conditional state can only name the threshold rather than resolve it. | |
| state | Yes | Two-letter state, territory or DC code, e.g. "CA". |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavioral context: the tool determines whether output is a deliverable or draft, returns plain-language consequences in documentStatus, and warns that unknown states must never be treated as open.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary details. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy: the first sentence could be tighter.
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?
Without an output schema, the description fully explains the semantics of gate, appliesToThisSite, and documentStatus, including edge cases like unknown states, null appliesToThisSite, and the implication for document draft status.
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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds valuable nuance for the acres parameter, explaining its role in resolving conditional thresholds and that without it the tool can only name the threshold.
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 the tool checks if a state requires a credentialed preparer for stormwater plans, with specific output fields (gate, appliesToThisSite, documentStatus). It distinguishes from sibling tools like determine_permit and get_requirements by focusing on credential requirements.
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?
The description advises when to use (e.g., to decide document status) and includes important caveats: unknown states must not be treated as open, and sending acres helps resolve conditional gates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_requirementsGet the permit requirements for a siteARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
The requirements for a site: inspection frequency, stabilisation deadlines, Notice of Intent and Notice of Termination deadlines, corrective-action windows, record retention and buffer rules, each citing the permit section it came from. Same engine and same parser as determine_permit, projected down. The coverage verdict, the eligibility screens and the notices come with it, because a requirement list detached from whether coverage is triggered at all is a half-answer. An empty requirements array with a notice means we have not read that jurisdiction's permit, NOT that nothing is required. Free, no API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| acres | No | Alias for disturbedAcres. | |
| state | Yes | Two-letter state, territory or DC code, e.g. "CA". | |
| endDate | No | ISO yyyy-mm-dd. Recorded on the determination. | |
| activity | Yes | Required. Construction and industrial sites are governed by different permits and neither is assumed. "industrial" returns coverage "verify": EPA's Multi-Sector General Permit expired on 28 February 2026 and new operators cannot currently obtain coverage. | |
| startDate | No | ISO yyyy-mm-dd. Recorded on the determination. | |
| sectorCode | No | MSGP industrial sector code. Industrial sites only. | |
| aridClimate | No | Arid, semi-arid or drought-stricken area, which may allow a reduced inspection frequency during the seasonally dry period. | |
| onTribalLand | No | EPA retains NPDES authority in Indian country even inside a state that runs its own programme. | |
| disturbedAcres | No | TOTAL acres the project will disturb over its life. This is what the 1-acre coverage threshold is measured against. `acres` is accepted as an alias. | |
| federalFacility | No | EPA's permit covers federal facilities in some delegated states. | |
| partOfLargerPlan | No | Whether the project is part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Defaults to false. Send it explicitly: a half-acre lot inside a 40-acre subdivision IS covered, and this is the most commonly missed trigger in the permit. | |
| dischargesToTier2Water | No | Discharges to a Tier 2, 2.5 or 3 water. Same tri-state handling as dischargesToImpairedWater. | |
| dischargesToImpairedWater | No | Discharges to a sediment or nutrient impaired water. OMIT IT if you do not know: it is never assumed false, and the determination reports the answer as unknown instead. It changes both the inspection frequency and the stabilisation deadline. | |
| maxDisturbedAcresAtOneTime | No | Greatest acreage disturbed AT ANY ONE TIME. A different quantity from disturbedAcres, and the one the stabilisation deadline actually turns on (2022 CGP Table 2): a project over five acres in total still gets the longer 14-day deadline if it phases the work so no more than five acres are open at once. OMIT IT if you do not know, and the determination assumes an unphased site and says so, rather than asserting phasing it was not told about. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds important context: it is free, no API key required, and explains the meaning of an empty requirements array. No contradiction with annotations.
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 paragraph with multiple sentences, each adding value (purpose, relation to sibling, edge case explanation). It is not overly verbose but could be slightly more streamlined.
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 complexity of 14 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: free, no API key, empty array interpretation, and relation to determine_permit. It covers the key aspects an agent needs to use the tool correctly.
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 100% with detailed per-parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is already comprehensive.
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 specifies exactly what the tool provides: inspection frequency, deadlines, buffer rules, etc., with citations. It distinguishes itself from sibling determine_permit by stating it is 'projected down' from the same engine, making its scope clear.
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?
The description implies that get_requirements is a subset of determine_permit, focusing on requirements with coverage and eligibility included. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose get_requirements over determine_permit or other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_usageWhat this key is allowed to doARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
What the credential on this connection is allowed to do: the tier it resolves to (anonymous, sandbox, test key, or a live key on a plan), the per-minute burst, the daily or monthly allowance, and whether calls bill. Call it once at the start of a long task to pace yourself, rather than discovering the ceiling as a rate_limited error halfway through. Takes no arguments. Free, no API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. Description adds value by disclosing it is free, requires no API key, and takes no arguments, providing context beyond annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague phrasing.
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 no output schema and zero parameters, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and when to use it. Could mention output format but not necessary for completeness.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description confirms 'takes no arguments', aligning with the schema coverage of 100%.
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 specifies 'what the credential on this connection is allowed to do' and lists the returned information (tier, burst, allowance, billing). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools through context (free, no API key needed).
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?
Explicitly advises when to use: 'at the start of a long task to pace yourself, rather than discovering the ceiling as a rate_limited error halfway through', providing a clear use case and avoiding misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_jurisdictionsList every jurisdiction and its permitting authorityARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Every state, territory and DC we hold a row for: NPDES authorisation status, the governing permit and its number, the agency name and URL, and the preparer-credential gate. Jurisdictions we have NOT verified are listed with confidence "unverified" and a note naming the agency to confirm with, rather than being omitted, because a jurisdiction missing from a coverage list reads as "no permit applies" and that is never what it means. Takes no arguments. Free, no API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destruction. The description adds context about unverified jurisdictions and their meaning, which is beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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 concise with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, starting with the core function and then explaining the unusual handling of unverified jurisdictions.
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 no parameters and no output schema, but annotations cover safety, the description fully explains the tool's behavior and the significance of unverified jurisdictions. No gaps.
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?
Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Baseline for 0 params is 4, as per instructions. Description does not need to add parameter details.
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 lists every jurisdiction with its permitting authority, mentioning specific fields like NPDES status, permit number, agency name, and URL. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it takes no arguments and provides a comprehensive coverage list.
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?
Explicitly states it's free and requires no API key. Explains the rationale for including unverified jurisdictions to prevent misinterpretation. This helps the agent know when to use this tool (for a complete list) vs. siblings that likely take arguments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!