Skip to main content
Glama

Epa Emissions

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Tri Facility Releases

tri_facility_releases
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search EPA TRI toxic chemical release facilities by state, and optionally by COUNTY — "what toxic releases are reported in Harris County, Texas" is the shape these questions usually take. Returns facility location, county, type, and chemicals released with quantities in pounds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 20, max 100).
stateYesTwo-letter state abbreviation (e.g., "TX", "CA").
countyNoCounty name WITHOUT the word "County" — "Harris", not "Harris County". Matched exactly, case-insensitive.
facility_nameNoFacility name to search for (partial match).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of facilities returned
stateYesTwo-letter state abbreviation searched
facilitiesYesArray of TRI facility records

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only behavior, idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds the output content (facility location, county, type, chemicals with quantities in pounds) which is helpful but not extra behavioral context like rate limits, auth, or pagination.

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 concise sentences: the first explains the search scope and query shape, the second summarizes the return fields. No redundancy, front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

With a rich output schema and annotations, the description covers the core functionality well. It omits mention of the limit and facility_name parameters, but those are documented in the schema. It could mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for chemical-specific queries), but overall it is sufficient.

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%, with each parameter already well-documented (e.g., county format). The description restates that search is by state and optional county but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches EPA TRI toxic chemical release facilities by state and optionally county, with an example query shape. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like tri_chemical_releases or tri_trends, but the scope is well-defined.

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 for when to use the tool: for queries about toxic releases by location (state/county), illustrated by 'what toxic releases are reported in Harris County, Texas'. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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

All Epa Emissions 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set contains multiple groups with overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research for data queries, multiple Polymarket tools, and memory tools). However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so ambiguity is moderate but not severe.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), others use domain-prefixed noun_verb (ghg_emissions_by_sector, polymarket_arbitrage). This mix, combined with a server name that doesn't match the tool domain, makes the naming pattern unclear.

Tool Count1/5

With 35 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given its name 'Epa Emissions' which suggests a narrow focus. Only 5 tools (ghg_*, tri_*) are related to emissions; the rest are unrelated, making the count inappropriate for the server's assumed purpose.

Completeness2/5

For an EPA/emissions server, the tool set is incomplete: it lacks other emissions data (e.g., air quality, water quality, enforcement). The inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., Polymarket, memory) does not compensate for missing core emissions coverage.

Resources