Skip to main content
Glama

Bridges — FHWA National Bridge Inventory: Condition, Posting & Clearance

screen_corridor

Screen a corridor for a vehicle profile: pass a route polyline as points (array of {lat, lon} objects tracing the actual road — submit a real route trace, not city points) plus a vehicle height and weight, and get back every bridge near the corridor that fails the profile, fails first then warnings, each nearest first with distance_km. Read-only: it checks data, it changes nothing. Height: pass one of height_ft or height_m. Weight: pass one of weight_lbs or weight_t (compared against the bridge operating rating in metric tons). buffer_km defaults to 2 (max 25) and sets how far from the polyline a bridge counts. pad_ft/pad_m (default 6 in) is added to the height before the clearance test. Fails: clearance below height plus pad (under-bridge clearance), posted below weight, closed, not yet open. Warnings, not failures: poor condition, unknown rating, unknown clearance. limit defaults to 100 (max 500); fails come first, warnings fill the remainder. Returns fails and warns arrays with fail_count and warn_count totals. Use this instead of find_bridges_nearby when you have a corridor, not a point, and instead of find_low_clearance_bridges when you have a full vehicle profile, not just a height threshold. This is a buffered-polyline screen, not a router: it does not produce directions. Data is the FHWA NBI 2025 annual snapshot, not live status, and bridges with no coordinates are excluded.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results returned, fails first then warnings, at most 500
pad_mNoSafety pad added to the height before the clearance test, in meters (default 0.15)
pad_ftNoSafety pad added to the height before the clearance test, in feet (default 6 in)
pointsYesRoute polyline tracing the actual road, as {lat, lon} points in decimal degrees (at least 2, at most 50). Submit a real route trace, not city points.
height_mNoVehicle height in meters, e.g. 4.11 — alternative to height_ft, pass one, not both
weight_tNoVehicle gross weight in metric tons — alternative to weight_lbs, pass one, not both
buffer_kmNoCorridor half-width in km: bridges within this distance of the polyline count, greater than 0 and at most 25
height_ftNoVehicle height in feet, e.g. 13.5 — alternative to height_m, pass one, not both
weight_lbsNoVehicle gross weight in pounds, e.g. 80000 — alternative to weight_t, pass one, not both

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it declares read-only behavior, explains that data is the FHWA NBI 2025 snapshot rather than live status, notes that bridges without coordinates are excluded, and defines exactly what counts as a failure versus a warning.

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 dense but front-loaded and every sentence carries useful information for invoking the tool correctly. Despite its length, it does not waste space on restating the title or repeating schema fields without added meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return shape: fails and warns arrays with fail_count and warn_count totals, ordered nearest first with distance_km. Combined with the failure/warning criteria and data-source caveats, this is complete enough to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description still adds useful operational semantics, especially that weight is compared against the bridge operating rating in metric tons, that height and weight alternatives are mutually exclusive, and that fails precede warnings in result ordering.

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 and resource: screening a corridor for a vehicle profile against bridge data. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming find_bridges_nearby and find_low_clearance_bridges and explaining the different inputs each expects.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this instead of find_bridges_nearby when you have a corridor rather than a point, and instead of find_low_clearance_bridges when you have a full vehicle profile rather than a height threshold. It also clarifies this is not a router and does not produce directions.

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.

Resources