EPA Air Quality System (AQS) MCP Server

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 describes the return format ('parameter codes and names') and their purpose ('use these codes in data queries'), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination, leaving gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage instructions and examples, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence serves a clear function: stating the action, explaining the output, and guiding usage.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, output format, and usage flow with a sibling tool. However, it lacks details on authentication (implied by parameters but not explained) and behavioral aspects like error handling, which could be important for API interactions.

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 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'pc' parameter ('parameter class name') and providing examples (e.g., 'CRITERIA'), which helps the agent understand the context beyond the schema's technical details. It also clarifies the relationship with 'aqs_list_parameter_classes' for obtaining valid class names.

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 specific action ('Get a list of parameters'), identifies the resource ('within a parameter class'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns parameter codes and names for use in data queries. It explicitly references the sibling tool 'aqs_list_parameter_classes' as a prerequisite, making its role distinct from other tools that fetch summary 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after using 'aqs_list_parameter_classes' to get available class names, and it lists common parameter codes to illustrate typical use cases. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on parameter listing rather than data retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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