facilities_by_stateList EPA-regulated facilities in a US state (and optionally a city) from the EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS). Returns each facility once with all the EPA programs it is regulated under. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Optional city name, e.g. "Berkeley". | |
| limit | No | Max rows to fetch (default 20, max 50). | |
| state | Yes | 2-letter US state code, e.g. "CA". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "state": "CA"
+ },
+ {
+ "city": "Berkeley",
+ "limit": 25,
+ "state": "CA"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by explaining deduplication across EPA programs and the 'Keyless' auth requirement. No contradictions; builds on 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 with no fluff. Front-loaded with the main action and scope. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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?
Given no output schema, description adequately explains return format (each facility once with programs). Simple list tool with good annotations; missing pagination details but overall sufficient for selection and invocation.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description does not add new semantic meaning beyond restating 'state', 'city', and 'limit'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema adequately documents parameters.
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?
Clearly states it lists EPA-regulated facilities by state (and optionally city). Distinguishes from siblings like facilities_by_zip and get_facility by the scope (state vs zip vs specific facility). The 'Keyless' note adds useful context.
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?
Implicitly indicates use for US state-level queries but does not explicitly guide when to prefer alternatives (e.g., for a ZIP code use facilities_by_zip, for a specific facility use get_facility). No exclusion criteria or 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.