Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

apibase

by io.github.whiteknightonhorse
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

EPA ECHO — Facility Detail

echo.compliance.facility_detail
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed compliance profile for a specific EPA-regulated facility by Registry ID. Returns full address with county, coordinates, SIC/NAICS codes, HUC watershed code, federal facility status, facility creation/termination dates, and a complete list of environmental program interests (e.g. "CAA Stationary Source", "NPDES Permit"). Registry IDs are obtained from echo.compliance.facility_search results. Essential for due diligence, ESG screening, and permit verification. Source: EPA ECHO — US Gov public domain, no auth required.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "registry_id": "<registry_id>"
    },
    "name": "echo.compliance.facility_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
registry_idYesEPA Facility Registry System (FRS) Registry ID for the facility (e.g. "110000350226"). Obtained from echo.facility_search results.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent only when the call failed. Includes error code, message, request_id, and any provider-specific extras.
resultNoTool response payload. Shape varies per tool — consult the tool description and inputSchema. May be an object, array, string, or number depending on the upstream provider response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'no auth required' and 'US Gov public domain,' which are not in the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional information beyond the structured data, though it omits rate limits or response size, which are less critical for a single-record lookup.

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?

The description is three sentences with no redundancy: the first states purpose and return fields, the second explains the workflow, and the third gives use cases and source/auth. It is front-loaded with the core action and keeps every sentence valuable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has an output schema, so explaining return values is not required, but the description lists them anyway. It also covers the source of the Registry ID, the workflow, use cases, and authentication requirements. For a single-parameter lookup tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already documents the registry_id parameter thoroughly, including an example and source. The description reinforces this by adding 'Registry IDs are obtained from echo.compliance.facility_search results,' which is extra workflow context beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and this addition justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed compliance profile for a specific EPA-regulated facility by Registry ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like echo.compliance.facility_search by specifying that this is a detail lookup and that Registry IDs come from search results. It also lists the specific return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states that Registry IDs are obtained from echo.compliance.facility_search, implying a clear workflow: search first, then retrieve detail. It also notes the tool is 'essential for due diligence, ESG screening, and permit verification,' providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like violations or air_facilities, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All apibase toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources