EPA Air Quality System (AQS) MCP Server

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 describes the data returned but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (implied by email/key parameters but not stated), rate limits, error handling, pagination, or data format. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the key data elements (statistics, metrics, exceedance counts) without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more concise by avoiding minor redundancy in listing statistics.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and data scope but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, and output format. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness for effective agent use.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions pollutants and statistics but not how they map to parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('annual summary data for all monitoring sites in a state'), with specific details about the data included (yearly statistics, metrics, exceedance counts). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'by state' scope, unlike other tools that target boxes, CBSAs, counties, or sites.

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 annual summary data at the state level, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., daily_summary_by_state, quarterly_summary_by_state, or other geographic scopes). It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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