Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

rundata.re · La Réunion en direct

by re.rundata
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Piton de la Fournaise et séismes à La Réunion

volcan_seismes
Read-only

État du volcan du Piton de la Fournaise et séismes à La Réunion (974) : éruption en cours ou non, niveau du dispositif ORSEC (vigilance, alerte 1, alerte 2…), date de la dernière éruption, accès à l'Enclos Fouqué, dernières publications de l'Observatoire volcanologique (OVPF-IPGP) et séismes localisés par l'OVPF ces 30 derniers jours, sous le volcan (aussi par jour) et ailleurs sur l'île. Pour : « le volcan est en éruption ? », « on peut monter au volcan ? », « il y a eu un séisme ? ». Réponse courte par défaut (les 3 dernières alertes, les séismes des 7 derniers jours) ; detail pour l'historique des alertes depuis 2016 et les séismes jour par jour sur 30 jours.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "volcan_seismes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNotrue : la réponse complète.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / detail / description
      Previous value: -"true : la réponse complète (historique des alertes depuis 2016, séismes jour par jour sur 30 jours)."New value: +"true : la réponse complète."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "true : la réponse complète (historique des alertes depuis 2016, séismes jour par jour sur 30 jours).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: the default response is truncated (3 latest alerts, 7 days of quakes) and detail=true expands to the full alert history since 2016 and day-by-day quakes over 30 days, plus it names the data source (OVPF-IPGP). It does not cover latency or data refresh cadence.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the resource and data payload, then example questions, then response-mode behavior. Every clause carries information; only the parenthetical '(974)' and slight repetition of the earthquake scope add minor noise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does list the returned fields and the two response modes. It leaves minor gaps such as units/format for alert levels or how publications are presented, but nothing that would cause a wrong call.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'la réponse complète', so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by spelling out exactly what short mode omits and what detail mode adds, which meaningfully guides the flag choice.

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 names the specific resource (Piton de la Fournaise volcano status and Réunion earthquakes) and enumerates the exact data returned: eruption status, ORSEC alert level, last eruption date, Enclos Fouqué access, OVPF-IPGP publications, and OVPF-located quakes over 30 days. An agent can distinguish it from weather or cyclone siblings without opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete triggering questions ('le volcan est en éruption ?', 'on peut monter au volcan ?', 'il y a eu un séisme ?'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it stops 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 rundata.re · La Réunion en direct toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources