coverage_stats
Read-onlyIdempotent
What TapWaterMap covers: states, cities, total EPA violation records, and the data quarter/date.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
tapwatermap
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
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 context about what data is returned (coverage items), which is not in 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?
Single concise sentence front-loaded with the purpose ('What TapWaterMap covers'). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns, making it complete for agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description explains the output contents, adding value beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 states the tool provides coverage information (states, cities, total EPA violation records, data quarter/date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_city_water or search_cities which focus on specific queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the content implies it is for getting an overview of available data, while siblings handle specific lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: `search` and `search_cities` both find cities by name, and `fetch` and `get_city_water` both retrieve EPA records for a city. This creates ambiguity for an agent deciding which tool to use.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_cities, get_city_water), but `fetch` and `search` are single-word imperatives without an object, breaking the consistency slightly.
Tool Count4/5
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for a data retrieval domain. Each tool has a distinct role, though some overlap could be consolidated, the count is reasonable.
Completeness3/5
Core operations (search cities, fetch records, compare, list states) are covered, but the redundancy between `fetch`/`get_city_water` suggests unclear boundaries, and there is no tool to search by water system name or list all contaminants.