Retrieve recent worldwide USGS earthquake data, ordered by magnitude, with place, time, and coordinates; filter by hour, day, or week and set a minimum magnitude.
Recent earthquakes worldwide (USGS), magnitude-ordered, with place, time and coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window | No | Time window to summarise (default: day). | |
| min_magnitude | No | Drop quakes below this magnitude. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits beyond the schema: the upstream source (USGS), the result ordering (magnitude-ordered), and the returned fields (place, time, coordinates). It does not state result limits, pagination, or refresh/rate behavior, which are the main unanswered questions for a feed-style tool.
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?
A single dense sentence with the resource, source, ordering and returned fields front-loaded; every clause earns its place and there is no boilerplate.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does list the key fields and ordering. It omits magnitude as a returned field (only implied) and says nothing about result count, which keeps it just short of fully complete for a feed tool.
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 both parameters (window, min_magnitude) are already documented with defaults and enum values. The description only loosely gestures at the time window via 'recent' and adds nothing about the magnitude filter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific resource (recent earthquakes worldwide), its source (USGS), and its ordering, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. The verb is implicit (list/retrieve) rather than stated, and there is no sibling that competes for the same data, so no differentiation is needed or provided.
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?
Usage is only implied by the scope words 'recent' and 'worldwide'; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. Since no sibling tool covers seismic data, the lack of routing guidance is a minor gap rather than a misleading one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.