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'. |
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 returns matching cities with an id, but omits details like result limits or output fields. Minor added value 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?
Description is a single sentence plus a parenthetical note, which is concise. Could be slightly more structured, but no unnecessary 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately notes the return includes an id for fetch, but doesn't describe other fields or behavioral constraints like pagination or limits. Adequate but not complete.
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 describes the query parameter (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter meaning 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 searches for US cities by name and returns an id for use with fetch. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like find_cities or 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings (find_cities, search_cities). The description lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.