get_facilityLook up one EPA-regulated facility by its FRS Registry ID. Returns the facility detail plus a programs[] array listing every EPA program (RCRAINFO, NPDES, AIRS, TRI, etc.) the site is regulated under. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| registry_id | Yes | FRS Registry ID, e.g. "110066524112". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "registry_id": "110066524112"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds 'Keyless' access detail and specifies return structure (programs array listing every EPA program), beyond annotations which already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior.
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 effectively convey purpose, input, and output. No extraneous 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?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers input, output, and access requirements. No missing critical details.
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 a clear description for registry_id. Description merely restates the parameter's role without adding new semantics. Baseline score of 3.
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?
Clear verb 'look up' with specific resource 'EPA-regulated facility' and identifier 'FRS Registry ID'. Distinguishes from siblings like facilities_by_state by specifying the lookup key and mentioning returned programs array.
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?
Implies usage when you have an FRS Registry ID. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear.
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.