api
Server Details
An MCP server that through www.gdacs.org provides access to web‐based disaster information systems.
- 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 3.5/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: active disasters, alert levels, statistics, event details, country-specific events, event types, recent alerts, and search. No overlap.
All tools use PascalCase with a verb_noun pattern, predominantly 'Get' prefix except 'SearchEvents'. The naming is consistent barring this minor variation.
8 tools cover essential data retrieval operations for a disaster API without being excessive or insufficient.
Comprehensive read surface: active, recent, search, by country, by type, with details and statistics. No obvious gaps for a query-focused API.
Available Tools
8 toolsGetActiveDisastersAInspect
Get currently active disasters. Returns events with their geographic footprints grouped by disaster type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventTypes | No | Optional: semicolon-separated event types to filter (e.g., 'EQ;TC;FL') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the output (active disasters with footprints) but does not disclose caching, update frequency, or rate limits. The description is minimally adequate for a simple read operation.
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 at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and result without any extraneous information.
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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and output. Minor details about the format of geographic footprints or grouping are missing but not critical for an agent's understanding.
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 100% for the single parameter 'eventTypes', which is adequately described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('currently active disasters'), and what it returns ('events with their geographic footprints grouped by disaster type'), distinguishing it from siblings that focus on specific events or statistics.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetEventData or GetDisasterStatistics is provided. The purpose implies usage for active disasters, but no exclusions or conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GetAlertLevelInfoAInspect
Get explanation of GDACS alert level classifications and their meanings.
| 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, and description only says 'Get explanation' without detailing behavioral aspects like data freshness, size, or side effects. For a read-only tool this is minimally acceptable but not proactive.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. Every word earns its place.
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?
Tool is simple with no parameters or output schema, but description could hint at response format or usage context. Minimal but adequate for a trivial tool.
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 has zero parameters, so description does not need to add parameter info. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters; description adds no extra semantics but is not required to.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get explanation' and the resource 'GDACS alert level classifications', distinguishing it from sibling tools like GetActiveDisasters or GetEventData which serve different purposes.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Since it has no parameters and is straightforward, context implies it's the sole source for classification meanings, but without explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GetDisasterStatisticsAInspect
Get disaster statistics aggregated by event type and alert level for a specified time period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toDate | No | End date for statistics period | 0001-01-01T00:00:00 |
| country | No | Country filter | |
| fromDate | No | Start date for statistics period | 0001-01-01T00:00:00 |
| alertLevel | No | Alert level filter | |
| eventTypes | No | Comma-separated event types to include |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states that data is 'aggregated,' but lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, how pagination or limits work, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is direct and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core purpose.
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 that there is no output schema and 5 parameters, the description provides an overview of the result (aggregated statistics) but lacks detail on the output structure, such as whether it returns a count, list, or object. The description is adequate but incomplete for fully preparing an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning aggregation by event type and alert level, but it does not explain parameter relationships, valid values, or how filters interact. It meets the minimum bar.
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's function: retrieving disaster statistics aggregated by event type and alert level over a specified time period. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetActiveDisasters or GetEventData.
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?
The description implies a context for usage (aggregated statistics over time) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. Sibling tools exist that could serve different purposes, but the description does not differentiate them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GetEventDataAInspect
Get detailed information about a specific disaster event. Returns event data including location, severity, affected population, and timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventId | Yes | Numeric event identifier from GDACS | |
| eventType | Yes | Event type code: EQ (Earthquake), TC (Tropical Cyclone), FL (Flood), VO (Volcano), WF (Wildfire), DR (Drought) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover safety profile. It describes the tool as a 'Get' operation, implying read-only, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or discuss rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. Adequate but not explicit.
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 sentences: first identifies purpose, second lists return fields. No wasted words, fully front-loaded. Exemplary conciseness.
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?
With low complexity (2 required params, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields. However, it omits details about error handling (e.g., if eventId is not found). Still, it is complete enough for most use cases.
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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Numeric event identifier from GDACS' and event type list). The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.
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 'Get detailed information about a specific disaster event', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It lists return fields (location, severity, affected population, timeline), distinguishing it from siblings that list active events, alert levels, or search.
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 like GetActiveDisasters or SearchEvents. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GetEventsByCountryBInspect
Get all disaster events affecting a specific country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default 50, max 100) | |
| country | Yes | Country name or ISO3 code | |
| daysBack | No | Number of days to look back (default 30, max 365) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. The claim 'Get all disaster events' is misleading because parameters limit and daysBack restrict results. No details about response format or edge cases are given.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming 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?
Despite high schema coverage, the lack of output schema and annotations leaves the description incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or data format, which is insufficient for a tool with three parameters.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal collective context ('affecting a specific country') but does not enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.
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 action (get), the resource (disaster events), and the scope (affecting a specific country). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like GetActiveDisasters and SearchEvents by specifying the filtering criterion.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or cases where other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GetEventTypesAInspect
Get list of all supported disaster event types with their descriptions.
| 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, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get list'), which is appropriate, but does not disclose any additional behavior such as caching, ordering, or completeness guarantees.
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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the purpose without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded and every word is necessary.
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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return value's nature. It provides context that this is a metadata list tool, which distinguishes it from data retrieval tools among siblings.
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 has zero parameters with full description coverage, so the schema already indicates no inputs are needed. The description adds value by specifying the output content: a list of event types with descriptions, clarifying what the tool returns.
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 retrieves 'all supported disaster event types with their descriptions,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like GetActiveDisasters or GetAlertLevelInfo which focus on different data.
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 like SearchEvents or GetAlertLevelInfo. The description implies it's for reference data, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer it over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GetRecentAlertsBInspect
Get list of recent disaster alerts from the last N hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Number of hours to look back (default 24, max 168) | |
| minAlertLevel | No | Minimum alert level: 'green', 'orange', or 'red' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states it retrieves a list. Does not disclose read-only nature, permissions, or potential side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and resource.
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?
For a tool returning a list without output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on the structure of returned alerts. Could be improved by specifying fields or mentioning it returns summary info.
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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds 'from the last N hours' which reinforces the hours parameter but does not elaborate on minAlertLevel. Baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'list of recent disaster alerts', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like GetActiveDisasters or GetAlertLevelInfo. The time window 'from the last N hours' is explicit.
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. Does not mention when to prefer this over GetActiveDisasters or SearchEvents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
SearchEventsBInspect
Search for disaster events with various filters. Returns a list of events matching the criteria, ordered by date descending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (1-100, default 20) | |
| toDate | No | End date for search range (ISO 8601 format) | 0001-01-01T00:00:00 |
| country | No | Filter by country name or ISO code | |
| fromDate | No | Start date for search range (ISO 8601 format) | 0001-01-01T00:00:00 |
| eventname | No | Filter by eventame, tipically for the TC, cyclone name | |
| alertLevel | No | Alert level filter: 'green', 'orange', 'red', or combination like 'orange;red' | |
| eventTypes | No | Comma-separated event types to include (e.g., 'EQ,TC,FL'). Leave empty for all types. | |
| minSeverity | No | Minimum severity value to filter |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions ordering but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or edge cases. Insufficient for a search tool with multiple filters.
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 that front-load purpose and key behavior. Could be slightly more structured but remains efficient.
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?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. Lacks details on return format, error handling, and filter interaction, limiting 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 description coverage is 100% for all 8 parameters. Description adds no extra semantic information beyond 'various filters', meeting baseline but not exceeding.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'disaster events', specifies filter capability and ordering by date descending. Distinct from sibling tools like GetActiveDisasters and GetEventsByCountry.
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 like GetActiveDisasters or GetEventsByCountry. Implies general search but lacks context for tool selection.
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!