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
- Repository
- varvararatta/botfactory-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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_checkBInspect
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?
The description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose specifics such as what is checked, return values, or side effects. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.
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 and front-loaded; single sentence with no unnecessary words. Efficient for a simple tool.
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 the tool has no parameters or output schema, the description is adequate but could be improved by mentioning what the health check returns (e.g., status).
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 exist, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 states the tool's action (check) and resource (server health), and it is distinct 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 versus alternatives; however, siblings are unrelated so minimal need, but still no explicit context provided.
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?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not disclose limitations, rate limits, or that it returns up-to-date data. Adequate but not detailed.
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: two sentences, front-loaded with action, then parameter clarifications. No wasted 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 the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main functionality. However, it does not describe the return value structure (e.g., a list of earthquakes with properties), which limits completeness.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by specifying valid values for 'period' (hour|day|week) and noting 'min_magnitude' is optional. This goes beyond the schema defaults.
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 'List recent earthquakes' with a specific verb and resource. It implies a distinction from sibling tools like 'significant_quakes' but does not explicitly differentiate.
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. The description lacks context like 'Use for recent events; for significant events, see significant_quakes'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
significant_quakesCInspect
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states that results are 'significant' and limited by period, but fails to disclose safety (read-only?), data limits, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with key info. However, it omits an explicit verb and could be slightly expanded for clarity without losing brevity.
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, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description does not cover many essential aspects: return format, ordering, pagination, or error conditions. The tool seems simple but still lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand its usage.
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 concrete valid values for the 'period' parameter ('week|month'), which are not present in the schema. This is helpful beyond the schema's type and default. However, it does not explain the behavior difference between week and month.
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 states 'Significant earthquakes only' which indicates the resource and filtering, but lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get'. Compared to sibling 'list_recent_quakes', it implies a more specific query but does not clearly differentiate behavior.
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 siblings. It does not mention alternatives or provide context such as data freshness or applicability for analysis. The sibling 'list_recent_quakes' likely covers a broader set, but no explicit comparison is given.
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!