jshis-mcp

get_hazard_intensity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves instrumental intensity at a WGS84 point for a chosen exceedance probability and period, helping assess Japan earthquake hazard.

Instructions

Read instrumental intensity at a specified exceedance probability at a WGS84 point.

Choose 3% or 6% for 30 years (default 3%), or 2%, 5%, 10% or 39% for 50 years (default 5%).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "latitude": "<latitude>",
      "longitude": "<longitude>"
    },
    "name": "get_hazard_intensity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`latitude`	Yes
`longitude`	Yes
`period_years`	No
`exceedance_probability_percent`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaning of the returned quantity (instrumental intensity) but does not disclose interpolation behavior, out-of-domain handling for remote open-ocean points, or any rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the parameter constraint. Nothing repeats the name or title and nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the tool itself is a simple point lookup. Given four parameters and zero schema description coverage, it is nearly complete, with only the coordinate parameter semantics and spatial edge behavior left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does the most valuable part: it states which exceedance probabilities are legal for each period_years value (3%/6% for 30 years, 2/5/10/39 for 50 years) and the defaults, a cross-parameter constraint not visible in the flat enums. Latitude/longitude semantics are only indirectly conveyed via 'WGS84 point', and period_years is referenced by value rather than by name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: read instrumental intensity at a given exceedance probability at a WGS84 point. The scope is unambiguous, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_earthquake_hazard or get_surface_ground_amplification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the sentence about period/probability pairs signals that this is the tool for point-level hazard queries with a chosen return period. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no mention of siblings as alternatives.

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

Deploy Server