tapwatermap
Server Details
Query US tap-water quality from the EPA's SDWIS records — by city, system, or contaminant.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
There is functional overlap between `get_city_water` and `fetch` (both retrieve city water records) and between `search` and `search_cities` (both find cities). Descriptions help differentiate but may still confuse an agent. Other tools are clearly distinct.
Most tools use verb_noun format (e.g., compare_cities, get_city_water), but `fetch` and `search` are bare verbs, and `coverage_stats` is noun_noun. This inconsistency, though minor, lowers the score.
Ten tools cover the domain well without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the tap water data ecosystem, earning its place.
The tool set provides comprehensive access to EPA tap water records: search, retrieval, comparison, filtering, and explanation of contaminants. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct state-level summary), but core workflows are covered.
Available Tools
10 toolscompare_citiesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Compare the EPA records of several cities side by side. Pass cities as 'City, ST' strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cities | Yes | e.g. ['Burlington, VT', 'Houston, TX'] |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating comparison is side-by-side, which implies a multi-row output. No contradiction.
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 waste. Front-loaded with main action and immediate format guidance.
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?
Sufficient for a simple 1-param tool with good annotations. Lacks detail on output format, but 'side by side' implies comparative view, so adequate.
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 example in schema. Description reinforces the format but adds no new meaning beyond schema. Baseline score 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?
The description uses specific verb 'Compare' and resource 'EPA records of several cities', clearly distinguishing from siblings like get_city_water (single city) or find_cities (search).
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?
Gives explicit usage example 'Pass cities as 'City, ST' strings', which helps the agent format input correctly. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context from siblings implies usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
coverage_statsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
What TapWaterMap covers: states, cities, total EPA violation records, and the data quarter/date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds specifics about what data is returned (states, cities, total EPA violation records, date), which is useful context beyond 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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the key question answered. It is appropriately concise, though the phrasing could be slightly clearer.
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 the tool has no parameters, solid annotations, and no output schema, the description completely conveys what the tool returns. No additional context is missing for this simple coverage stats tool.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters and 100% documentation coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist. Baseline for zero params is 4.
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 that the tool returns coverage information about states, cities, total EPA violation records, and data quarter/date. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools; the purpose is understood from 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?
The description implies usage for obtaining coverage overview but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch or search. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explain_contaminantARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Plain-English explanation of an EPA contaminant by name or code: the EPA name, whether the EPA classifies it as health-based, and how often it appears in our records. Not medical advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contaminant | Yes | Contaminant name or EPA code, e.g. 'TTHM' or '2950'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds a 'Not medical advice' disclaimer, which is useful but not a behavioral trait. It does not disclose additional behaviors like response format or potential errors.
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 concise sentence plus a short disclaimer. Every word adds value, and the main action is front-loaded. No unnecessary 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, inputs, and outputs. It notes what is returned and states what it is not (medical advice), making it self-contained.
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 of the 'contaminant' parameter. The description adds example values ('TTHM' or '2950') but does not go beyond what the schema already states. Baseline score of 3 applies given high schema coverage.
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 the tool provides a 'Plain-English explanation of an EPA contaminant by name or code' and lists specific outputs (EPA name, health classification, frequency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' or 'get_city_water' by focusing on contaminant lookup and explanation.
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 when to use (get contaminant explanation) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings. While the context is clear, explicit guidance on exclusion or sibling differentiation is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetchARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch the full plain-English EPA tap-water record for a city id (e.g. 'vt/burlington') returned by search. (ChatGPT/Deep-Research compatible.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | City id like 'vt/burlington' (state/slug). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds that it returns a 'plain-English' record, which is a behavioral trait (format) beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 short sentences, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part adds value.
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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, input sourcing, and compatibility. It could mention what the record contains (e.g., contaminants, levels), but the term 'full plain-English EPA tap-water record' is reasonably descriptive.
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 the 'id' parameter. The description adds that the id comes from `search`, providing extra context on how to obtain valid values, which is useful 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?
Description clearly states the action (fetch), resource (full plain-English EPA tap-water record), and dependency on a city id from `search`. The sibling set includes other tools like `get_city_water` and `get_water_system`, and the description differentiates by specifying the exact record type and source of input.
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?
Explicitly states that the id is returned by `search`, which gives clear when-to-use guidance. Also notes compatibility with ChatGPT/Deep-Research. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to similar sibling tools like `get_city_water`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_citiesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Filter/rank cities across the dataset — e.g. cities in TX with open health-based violations, or cities with a specific contaminant. Returns ranked matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | Optional 2-letter state code. | |
| contaminant | No | Optional EPA contaminant code or name (use explain_contaminant to find a code). | |
| minPopulation | No | ||
| healthBasedOnly | No | ||
| openViolationsOnly | No | Only cities with violations not returned to compliance. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it 'returns ranked matches,' which implies ordering behavior not captured by annotations. This provides useful extra context.
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: first defines purpose, second gives examples. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the verb 'Filter/rank'.
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 tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main filtering use cases. It explains what the tool does and returns ('ranked matches'). It could elaborate on the ranking criterion or clarify that all parameters are optional, but it is mostly complete given the annotations.
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 has 50% description coverage (3 of 6 parameters described). The description adds meaning through examples (e.g., using state and contaminant), but does not fully compensate for undocumented parameters like limit, minPopulation, and healthBasedOnly. It implies usage patterns but lacks explicit parameter descriptions.
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 filters/ranks cities across the dataset and provides concrete examples (e.g., cities in TX with open health-based violations). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_state_cities (which likely lists all cities in a state) and search_cities (general search).
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 gives clear context for using the tool (filtering and ranking cities) and includes examples that imply typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity with siblings like compare_cities or fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_city_waterARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
The core tool: what the EPA has on record for a city's tap water — the active community water systems serving it, populations, sources, and violations (contaminant, health-based or not, dates, status, level vs limit when recorded). Plain-English, sourced, never a safety verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | ||
| state | Yes | 2-letter state code, e.g. 'VT'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations: 'never a safety verdict' and 'Plain-English, sourced.' Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, so description complements them without contradiction.
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?
Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with 'The core tool.' While dense, it conveys necessary information without excess. Minor improvement could split into two sentences.
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 simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately outlines returned data (populations, sources, violations) and caveats (no safety verdict). Could mention handling of multiple systems or empty results.
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 50% (only state has description). The description does not elaborate on parameter formats (e.g., city spelling, capitalization) beyond what the schema provides, missing an opportunity to compensate.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves EPA data on a city's tap water, including specific data fields (populations, sources, violations). It positions itself as 'the core tool,' distinguishing it from siblings like compare_cities or get_water_system.
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 this is the primary tool for city water data but does not explicitly specify when to use it versus siblings like search_cities or explain_contaminant. No guidance on when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_water_systemARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
EPA record for a single water system by its PWSID (e.g. 'VT0005053'): name, population served, source, and violations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pwsid | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing the returned fields (name, population, source, violations). It does not contradict annotations but could mention additional behaviors like requirement of PWSID existence or error handling.
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 one sentence with front-loaded action and resource, followed by a clarifying example and list of contents. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.
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, the description adequately outlines return fields. It covers the essential context for a single-record lookup tool. It could mention if PWSID is case-sensitive or if non-existent IDs produce an error, but overall complete for its simplicity.
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 single parameter 'pwsid' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description compensates with an explicit example format ('VT0005053') and indicates it is a string identifier. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare 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 explicitly states it retrieves an EPA record for a single water system by PWSID, listing specific fields included (name, population, source, violations). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_city_water' and 'search_cities' by focusing on a single water system and its EPA data.
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 provides a clear usage context: use when you have a specific PWSID, with an example. It implies when to use over siblings (e.g., not for searching cities), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_state_citiesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List all covered cities in a state (with violation counts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | 2-letter state code. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool returns violation counts, but does not elaborate on other behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 concise sentence (10 words) that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. 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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description mentions 'with violation counts' but does not specify the return format (e.g., list of city names? counts attached?). This leaves some ambiguity for agents.
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% and the single parameter 'state' is described as '2-letter state code.' The description does not add any extra meaning beyond this, so the semantic value is baseline.
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 specifies the action 'list', resource 'covered cities', scope 'in a state', and additional detail 'with violation counts'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compare_cities, coverage_stats, or find_cities.
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 use when you need a list of cities and violation counts per state. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, though the sibling context offers some differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search TapWaterMap for US cities by name. Returns matching cities with an id you can pass to fetch. (ChatGPT/Deep-Research compatible.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | City name or partial name, e.g. 'Burlington'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already define readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that results include an id for fetch and notes ChatGPT/Deep-Research compatibility, adding beyond 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, concise and to the point with no wasted words. Purpose and output usage are efficiently communicated.
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?
Adequately describes a simple search tool with one parameter. Could mention result limits or pagination, but not necessarily required. Missing differentiation from sibling 'search_cities'.
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% for the single parameter. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema's description.
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?
States it searches for US cities by name and returns matching cities with an id for use with fetch. Purpose is clear but does not distinguish from sibling 'search_cities'.
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 for searching cities by name, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_citiesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Find covered US cities by name, optionally within a state. Returns counts + the page URL for each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| state | No | Optional 2-letter state code, e.g. 'TX'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns counts and page URLs, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any potential rate limits or data freshness.
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, efficient sentence that starts with the action. It contains no redundant information and is easy to parse.
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 the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete: it does not explain what 'counts' refers to, whether pagination exists, or the exact behavior of the state filter. It is adequate for a simple search but lacks detail.
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 only 33% (only 'state' has a description). The overall description mentions 'by name' hinting at the 'query' parameter, but does not explain 'limit' or the format of 'query'. The description does not compensate sufficiently for the lack of parameter descriptions in 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 the action (find), the resource (US cities), and the scope (by name, optionally within state). It also mentions returns (counts + page URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_state_cities' or 'compare_cities'.
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 for searching cities by name with optional state filter, but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_cities' or 'list_state_cities'. No exclusions or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!