tapwatermap

find_cities

Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "find_cities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJun 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'Returns ranked matches' but does not explain ranking criteria or output structure, providing moderate added context.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core function. Every part earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and partial parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, ranking behavior, or parameter constraints beyond the example.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (3 of 6 parameters described). The description does not elaborate on any parameters beyond the implicit example, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies the verb 'Filter/rank', the resource 'cities', and provides concrete examples that differentiate it from sibling tools like compare_cities and search_cities.

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 gives explicit example usage ('cities in TX with open health-based violations') implying when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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

All tapwatermap tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?