Earthquake Monitor Mcp
Server Details
Our Earthquake Monitor harnesses the USGS earthquake feed to provide you with up-to-the-minute
- 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 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Health check is distinct, but list_recent_quakes and significant_quakes both return earthquake data with some overlap (e.g., both can return weekly quakes). Descriptions help differentiate, but ambiguity exists for cases like 'list significant quakes in the last week.'
Naming is inconsistent: health_check uses a noun phrase, list_recent_quakes uses verb_prefix_noun, and significant_quakes uses adjective_noun. No clear pattern across the set.
Three tools is slightly below average but reasonable for a focused monitor. Each tool serves a clear purpose, though more could be added for detail queries.
The surface covers health, recent, and significant quakes but lacks tools for detailed quake information, location-based search, or historical data beyond a week. Notable gaps exist for a fully functional earthquake monitor.
Available Tools
3 toolshealth_checkCInspect
Server health check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose what 'health check' entails (e.g., connectivity, status), return value, or side effects. Minimal behavioral detail.
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?
Very concise at one sentence. However, it is too brief and lacks substantive information that could be included without being verbose.
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 parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description is minimal. It omits important context like expected response or when to use, making it incomplete for a tool with no structured metadata.
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?
No parameters. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. With zero parameters, baseline is 4. Description adds nothing beyond schema but none needed.
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 'Server health check' clearly indicates the tool's purpose of checking server health. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which are earthquake-related.
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 (e.g., before other operations) or alternatives. It simply states what it is without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_recent_quakesBInspect
List recent earthquakes. period: hour|day|week. Optional min_magnitude filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | day | |
| min_magnitude | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only status, side effects, or rate limits. It only describes parameters.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists parameters. No fluff or 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?
Adequate for a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, but lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral context, especially given the presence of sibling tools and no 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 description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the allowed values for period (hour|day|week) and indicating min_magnitude is optional, though it does not define the range or unit for min_magnitude.
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 lists recent earthquakes and provides the possible values for period (hour|day|week). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'significant_quakes', which could list significant earthquakes specifically.
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 alternatives (e.g., significant_quakes). The description only lists parameters without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
significant_quakesBInspect
Significant earthquakes only. period: week|month.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | week |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Short description lacks behavioral traits like what constitutes 'significant,' whether it's read-only, or any side effects. No annotations provided to compensate.
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?
Extremely concise with no superfluous text. Purpose is front-loaded.
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?
Missing key context: no output schema, so description should clarify return format or significance criteria. Incomplete for a tool with no 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?
Description specifies 'week|month' as allowed values for period, compensating for 0% schema description coverage. Adds meaning beyond schema's default-only definition.
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?
Clear that tool retrieves significant earthquakes, but does not distinguish from sibling list_recent_quakes. Implies filtering by significance.
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 vs alternatives. Only mentions period parameter, no context for appropriate usage.
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!