Retrieve FEMA region boundaries and the states each region covers to identify which region applies to any U.S. state or territory.
Get FEMA region boundaries and associated states. 10 FEMA regions cover all U.S. states and territories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.4.11Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2026.3.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a factual scope note (10 regions, all states/territories) but does not disclose any behavioral traits like return format or data structure. It does not contradict the annotations, and it adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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 two sentences with no fluff. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the additional sentence provides useful context about the 10 regions. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It states what the tool returns and a key fact about coverage, which is complete for a simple lookup tool. Nothing critical is missing.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4. The description correctly does not waste words on parameters since none exist.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'FEMA region boundaries and associated states,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also provides a factual detail about 10 regions covering all states and territories, which helps distinguish it from other FEMA tools like fema_disaster_declarations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools such as fema_query or fema_disaster_declarations, nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. An agent would have no guidance on selecting this over other FEMA tools beyond inferring from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.