get_earthquakeGet full detail for a single earthquake by its USGS event id (e.g. "us7000n7n8"). Returns magnitude, location, time, depth, felt reports, tsunami flag, PAGER alert level, status, contributing networks, and detail URLs. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | USGS event id, e.g. "us7000n7n8". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "event_id": "us7000n7n8"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it is 'Keyless' and enumerates the specific data fields returned, providing context beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a clear structure: purpose, example, then a list of returned fields. It conveys all necessary information with no wasted words.
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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description provides a comprehensive list of return fields, notes keyless access, and the schema covers the parameter. No critical gaps remain for an agent to use it effectively.
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?
The input schema already fully documents the single event_id parameter with an example. The description repeats the parameter semantics but does not add additional constraints, formatting details, or clarifications beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states it retrieves full details for a single earthquake using a USGS event id. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'earthquake detail' distinguish it from sibling tools like search_earthquakes and count_earthquakes.
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?
The description implies usage when the user has a specific USGS event id, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for searching or counting earthquakes, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.