Skip to main content
Glama

Epa Echo

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Echo Violations

echo_violations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get violation details for a facility, filterable by program (water, air, waste). Returns violation dates, types, and current status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
programNoEnvironmental program filter: "CWA" (water), "CAA" (air), or "RCRA" (waste). Defaults to CWA.
registry_idYesEPA Registry ID (from echo_facility_search results).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
programYesEnvironmental program (CWA, CAA, or RCRA)
violationsYesViolation details and status data
registry_idYesEPA Registry ID for the facility

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "registry_id": "110000350148"
-  },
-  {
-    "program": "CAA",
-    "registry_id": "110000350148"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "registry_id": "110037848498"
+  },
+  {
+    "program": "CAA",
+    "registry_id": "110037848498"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "program": {
+      "description": "Environmental program (CWA, CAA, or RCRA)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "registry_id": {
+      "description": "EPA Registry ID for the facility",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "violations": {
+      "description": "Violation details and status data",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "registry_id",
+    "program",
+    "violations"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "registry_id": "110000350148"
+  },
+  {
+    "program": "CAA",
+    "registry_id": "110000350148"
+  }
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only operation. Description adds context on returned data (dates, types, status). No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded, no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with full annotations and output schema, description covers purpose and basics completely.

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 covers both parameters well (100%). Description mentions 'program' filtering but does not add significant meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'violation details for a facility', and specifics about filtering and return fields. Distinct from siblings like echo_compliance_history or echo_enforcement_actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies use for violation details but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to use alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Epa Echo 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded form a tight cluster, and the beta variant is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today. Several meta-tools like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and deep_research also overlap in discovery-oriented usage, so an agent must read carefully to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly lowercase with underscores and mostly descriptive, but the conventions are mixed: verb_noun tools like validate_claim and list_subscriptions sit alongside noun_phrase tools like entity_profile and polymarket_arbitrage, plus bare verbs like remember and subscribe. It is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, and the surface spans unrelated domains: EPA ECHO data, general Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, memory, npm scanning, and AI visibility checks. For a server named 'Epa Echo', most tools feel out of scope and the collection seems like several separate servers merged together.

Completeness4/5

The EPA ECHO subset provides a solid facility-search, violations, compliance-history, and enforcement-action lifecycle. The broader Pipeworx surface also covers lookups, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiling, subscriptions, and memory, with only minor workaround-level gaps such as no dedicated ECHO permit/emissions detail tool.

Resources