Skip to main content
Glama

Usgs Earthquakes

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Count Earthquakes

count_earthquakes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Count earthquakes matching a filter without returning the events — fast for questions like "how many M5+ quakes in the last month near X". Same filters as search_earthquakes (time, magnitude, circular area). Keyless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_timeNoISO date/time upper bound. Defaults to now.
latitudeNoCenter latitude for a circular search.
longitudeNoCenter longitude for a circular search.
start_timeNoISO date/time lower bound. Defaults to 30 days ago.
max_magnitudeNoMaximum magnitude.
max_radius_kmNoSearch radius in km around latitude/longitude.
min_magnitudeNoMinimum magnitude (e.g. 5 for M5+).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "end_time": "2026-06-09",
+    "min_magnitude": 5,
+    "start_time": "2026-05-09"
+  },
+  {
+    "latitude": 35,
+    "longitude": 139,
+    "max_radius_km": 200,
+    "min_magnitude": 6.5,
+    "start_time": "2026-01-01"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it confirms the operation returns a count rather than events, notes that it is fast, and mentions that it is keyless. This gives the agent important behavioral information without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is just three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds value: the use case, the filter compatibility with search_earthquakes, and the keyless access. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple count tool, this description covers the main function, the return behavior (count, no events), and authentication (keyless). It references the sibling search_earthquakes for filter details, and the annotations cover safety. It does not specify the exact response format, but given the simplicity of the tool, that is not a major gap.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description groups the parameters into categories (time, magnitude, circular area) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already defines. The grouping is helpful but not essential.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as counting earthquakes matching a filter, with the specific verb 'count' and resource 'earthquakes'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'without returning the events', making it clear that this is the counting counterpart to search_earthquakes.

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 a concrete use case ('how many M5+ quakes in the last month near X') and indicates that filters are the same as search_earthquakes, which helps an agent understand when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state 'use search_earthquakes when you need the event details', though the phrase 'without returning the events' implies it.

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

All Usgs Earthquakes 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is dominated by tools unrelated to USGS earthquakes (e.g., Polymarket betting, company profiles, memory operations). An agent would find it nearly impossible to distinguish the few earthquake-specific tools from the multitude of unrelated ones, leading to severe misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., search_earthquakes, count_earthquakes), which is consistent. However, the variety of verbs and domains creates a sense of incoherence, and some tool names are overly generic (e.g., process, run) in the broader context, though those are not present here. The naming pattern is acceptable but the inconsistency in domain scope reduces clarity.

Tool Count1/5

With 29 tools but only 3 directly related to earthquakes, the tool count is grossly inappropriate. The server's name suggests a focused purpose, but the vast majority of tools belong to other domains (e.g., Pipeworx queries, Polymarket betting, company data). This extreme mismatch makes the tool set bloated and misleading.

Completeness2/5

For earthquake data, the server provides only search, count, and get by ID. Missing are common operations like listing recent quakes, subscribing to alerts, or updating/correcting data. The coverage is minimal and insufficient for a comprehensive earthquake tool server, leaving significant gaps that agents could not work around.

Resources