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 3.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: active disasters, alert levels, statistics, event details, country-specific events, event types, recent alerts, and search. No two tools have overlapping functionalities.
All tool names follow the 'get_' prefix with underscore-separated nouns, creating a predictable and consistent pattern.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a disaster information API, providing sufficient endpoints without unnecessary complexity.
The tool set covers all common disaster information retrieval needs: active events, search, country-specific, details, statistics, types, and alert levels. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
8 toolsget_active_disastersBInspect
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 provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states output format but not whether it is read-only, any side effects, or performance characteristics.
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 front-loading the core purpose and output. No redundant text.
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?
The description gives a basic understanding for a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. However, it lacks details on the format of geographic footprints and event fields, which could be ambiguous.
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 well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional param information, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'currently active disasters', and the output format ('events with geographic footprints grouped by disaster type'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_events_by_country or search_events.
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 get_events_by_country or search_events. Missing context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_alert_level_infoAInspect
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?
With no annotations, the description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose behavior such as whether authentication is needed, if the output is static or dynamic, or the structure of the explanation. For a parameterless tool, this is adequate but minimal; adding output details would improve transparency.
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 10 words, directly stating the purpose. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No redundant or vague wording.
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 and no output schema, the description is brief but could be more informative. It does not describe the return format (e.g., plain text, structured JSON) or how the explanation is organized. Adding context like 'returns a description of each alert level' would enhance 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?
The input schema has no parameters and is trivially 100% covered. The description does not need to add parameter info because there are none. The schema already conveys that the tool requires no inputs, which is sufficient.
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 verb 'Get explanation' and the resource 'GDACS alert level classifications and their meanings.' It is specific about what the tool returns and distinguishes it from siblings like get_event_types, which list event types rather than explain alert level classifications.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since sibling tools exist (e.g., get_active_disasters, get_event_data), the agent would benefit from hints about prerequisites or when to consult this explanation, but none are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_disaster_statisticsAInspect
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 | |
| country | No | Country filter | |
| fromDate | No | Start date for statistics period | |
| 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 carries the full burden. The verb "Get" implies a read-only, safe operation. However, the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits like data freshness, pagination, or rate limits. It is minimally sufficient but lacks depth.
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 that front-loads the core action and aggregation dimensions. It is concise, with no wasted words, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's 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?
No output schema is provided, so the description should explain the return value structure. It does not – the output format (e.g., counts, lists, grouping) is unspecified. Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand what the tool returns.
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 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description restates aggregation by event type, alert level, and time period, which aligns with the parameters. However, it adds no significant new semantic detail beyond the schema descriptions, 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 tool retrieves disaster statistics aggregated by event type and alert level for a specified time period. It uses a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("disaster statistics") with clear aggregation dimensions, distinguishing it from siblings like get_active_disasters (list current disasters) and get_event_data (raw event 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?
The description implies the tool is for aggregated statistics over time, suggesting it when summaries are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like search_events or get_event_data, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_event_dataAInspect
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation (get) and mentions return fields, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple data retrieval, this is adequate but not fully transparent.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates purpose and return type. There is no waste, though room exists to add usage guidance without sacrificing 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?
Given no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the purpose and general return content. However, it lacks usage guidelines and does not address behavioral aspects like typical response structure or limits, leaving the definition somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.
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 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the two parameters. The description adds 'including location, severity, affected population, and timeline' hinting at the kind of data returned but does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 tool gets detailed information about a specific disaster event, listing return fields like location, severity, affected population, and timeline. The verb 'Get' and resource 'event data' are specific, and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_active_disasters' or 'search_events' that perform different operations.
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 usage when a specific event ID and type are known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. No guidance on when not to use it is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_events_by_countryCInspect
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any non-obvious behaviors such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or effects of parameters beyond the basic filter.
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 is concise, but it lacks structure and important details. It could benefit from breaking out parameter usage or clarifying scope. Not overly verbose, but not optimally organized.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should hint at return data or pagination. It does not. Also, the interaction between parameters (e.g., daysBack and limit) is not explained. Incomplete 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the country filter. Baseline 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 all disaster events') and the filtering criterion ('affecting a specific country'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_event_data or search_events by specifying a country filter.
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 such as search_events or get_active_disasters. The description implies use for country-specific queries but does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_event_typesBInspect
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the output (list with descriptions) but does not disclose whether the list is exhaustive, ordered, or if there are any restrictions. Since the tool has no parameters, the behavior is simple, and the description is 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?
A single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
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, the description should explain what is returned. It mentions 'list of all supported disaster event types with their descriptions' which is sufficient for a simple enumeration. However, it does not mention return format (e.g., array of strings or objects), but for a tool with no params, this is acceptable.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds value by indicating the output includes descriptions, which complements the empty schema.
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 it retrieves a list of supported disaster event types with descriptions. The verb 'get' and the resource 'event types' are specific. However, it does not distinguish from siblings, but this tool's function is unique enough that differentiation is less critical.
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. Sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'get_active_disasters' might also involve event types, but the description does not specify that this is for enumeration of valid types or that it should be used for reference purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_recent_alertsAInspect
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; the description does not disclose ordering, pagination, rate limits, or result fields, leaving the agent guessing about behavior beyond the basic purpose.
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 fluff; all words contribute to clarity.
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 2 optional params, but the description omits details like sorting direction, result limit, or timezone, which would be valuable for an AI agent.
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% and describes both parameters well. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 gets a list of recent disaster alerts filtered by hours, distinguishing it from siblings like get_active_disasters (active vs recent) and search_events (searchable vs recent list).
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 usage for retrieving alerts from the last N hours but does not compare with alternatives like search_events or get_events_by_country, nor specify when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_eventsBInspect
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) | |
| country | No | Filter by country name or ISO code | |
| fromDate | No | Start date for search range (ISO 8601 format) | |
| 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that results are ordered by date descending, which is a behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on pagination, result size limits, or any side effects. As a read-only search, it is likely safe, but more transparency about behavior beyond the schema is needed.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the key action and result ordering. No redundant or vague statements. Could be slightly more structured, but it's 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?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain how search_events differs from get_events_by_country or get_active_disasters. It also does not mention pagination or that limit controls page size. More context would help an agent choose and use 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool searches for disaster events with filters and returns a list. It uses specific verbs and resource, and the ordering is mentioned. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_active_disasters or get_events_by_country, though the name 'search' implies broader functionality.
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 does not mention scenarios where sibling tools might be more appropriate, nor does it provide context on when to apply filters or limit 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!