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 discloses that authentication is required ('Requires both state and county codes'), but does not mention rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure). It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details for a tool with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and prerequisites in just two sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately concise.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or advanced behavioral traits. It is complete enough for a simple lookup tool but could be more comprehensive to fully compensate for the missing structured data.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying that state and county codes are required for the query, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 air quality monitoring sites') and resource ('within a county'), including the output format ('with their 4-digit site codes'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on site listing rather than summary data or other list operations, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this to look up site codes for site-level AQS API queries'), which helps guide the agent. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, missing full comparative guidance.

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