Track cross-verified global and regional seismic events in real time across USGS, EMSC, and AFAD networks to monitor earthquake activity by magnitude.
Track cross-verified global and regional seismic events in real time across USGS, EMSC, and AFAD networks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxResults | No | Maximum seismic events to return. | |
| minMagnitude | No | Minimum Richter magnitude threshold (e.g., "3.0", "4.5"). | 4.5 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose two behavioral traits beyond the schema: real-time freshness and cross-network verification of events. It does not say how cross-verification manifests in results (merged vs. duplicate entries), how results are ordered, or how the networks are reconciled when they disagree.
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 well-formed sentence with the resource, scope, and sources front-loaded and no filler. Slight deduction because "cross-verified" is an undefined term that is doing a lot of unstated work.
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?
For a two-optional-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what it is and where data comes from. What is missing is minor but real: nothing on result ordering, deduplication across networks, or whether an empty cross-verification result means no events or no consensus.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (maxResults, minMagnitude) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning about how thresholds interact across the three feeds (e.g., whether a single network's magnitude suffices) and does not mention the 4.5 default.
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?
States a specific verb ("Track") and resource ("seismic events"), plus the three data sources (USGS, EMSC, AFAD) and the "cross-verified" aggregation angle. This implicitly separates it from single-network siblings like turkey_earthquakes_afad_official_feed and europe_mediterranean_earthquakes_emsc, though it never names them explicitly.
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: the "global and regional" + multi-network framing suggests this is the broad aggregator versus regional single-source siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the routing rule from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.