Skip to main content
Glama

get_city_water

Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYes
stateYes2-letter state code, e.g. 'VT'.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by noting the output is 'plain-English, sourced, never a safety verdict', but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key details. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured with line breaks for readability.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines what data is returned (systems, populations, sources, violations). It addresses the tool's scope well, though missing details on pagination or data format.

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?

With 50% schema coverage (state parameter documented, city not), the description could compensate but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on city format or constraints.

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 that this tool retrieves EPA records for a city's tap water, listing specific data points (systems, populations, sources, violations). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_water_system' by focusing on a city aggregate and explicitly stating it's not a safety verdict.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_cities' or 'get_water_system'. The description claims it's 'the core tool' but does not specify exclusions or conditions for alternative tools.

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.

Resources