Skip to main content
Glama
tyson-swetnam

EPA Air Quality System (AQS) MCP Server

aqs_annual_summary_by_box

Retrieve annual air quality statistics for monitoring sites within a geographic bounding box, including pollutant means, percentiles, exceedance counts, and data completeness metrics.

Instructions

Get annual summary data for all monitoring sites within a geographic bounding box defined by latitude/longitude coordinates. Annual summaries include yearly statistics such as arithmetic mean, standard deviation, maximum values, percentiles (10th through 99th), observation counts, data completeness metrics, and exceedance counts for primary and secondary NAAQS standards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoEmail address registered with the AQS API. If not provided, uses AQS_EMAIL environment variable.
keyNoAPI key for AQS access. If not provided, uses AQS_API_KEY environment variable.
paramYesParameter code for the pollutant (e.g., "44201" for Ozone, "88101" for PM2.5, "42401" for SO2, "42101" for CO, "42602" for NO2, "81102" for PM10). Up to 5 comma-separated codes allowed.
bdateYesBegin date in YYYYMMDD format. Must be in the same calendar year as edate.
edateYesEnd date in YYYYMMDD format. Must be in the same calendar year as bdate.
minlatYesMinimum latitude of the bounding box in decimal degrees (e.g., "33.0").
maxlatYesMaximum latitude of the bounding box in decimal degrees (e.g., "34.5").
minlonYesMinimum longitude of the bounding box in decimal degrees. Use negative values for western hemisphere (e.g., "-118.5").
maxlonYesMaximum longitude of the bounding box in decimal degrees. Use negative values for western hemisphere (e.g., "-117.0").
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (e.g., statistics, metrics) but lacks critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements (implied by email/key parameters but not stated), rate limits, error handling, or data format. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second details the included data. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication behavior, response format, error conditions, and how it differs from siblings beyond geographic scope. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context to guide the agent effectively.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'latitude/longitude coordinates' and 'annual summaries include yearly statistics', but does not provide additional syntax, constraints, or examples not covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get annual summary data') and resource ('for all monitoring sites within a geographic bounding box'), distinguishing it from siblings by specifying the geographic scope (bounding box) and temporal scope (annual summaries). It explicitly mentions what data is included, 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through context (e.g., 'annual summary data' vs. 'daily summary' in sibling tools), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aqs_annual_summary_by_county or aqs_daily_summary_by_box. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tyson-swetnam/aqs-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server