Skip to main content
Glama
malonestar

gov-data-mcp

by malonestar

epa-drinking-water-quality-screener

Identify the public water system serving any US coordinate and review its EPA health-based violations, lead, and PFAS data.

Instructions

EPA Drinking Water Quality Screener - Violations, Lead & PFAS. Screen any US coordinate for the public water system serving it: SDWA health-based violations, Lead & Copper Rule 90th-percentile results and UCMR5 PFAS detections - the evidence base behind the LCRI (Nov 1, 2027) and PFAS NPDWR (Apr 26, 2027) deadlines. Never clears a source that did not answer. Reads live from the official government source. Store page: https://apify.com/malonestar/epa-drinking-water-quality-screener

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetsNoSites to screen, each {"lat": <number>, "lon": <number>, "label": "<your name for the site>"}. Each location is matched against EPA's mapped community water system service areas to identify the serving public water system. A location with no mapped service area returns an explicit NO_SERVICE_AREA row (likely a private well), never a false clear. Example: [{"lat":43.0125,"lon":-83.6875,"label":"Flint MI - lead action level exceedance"},{"lat":40.9793,"lon":-74.1165,"label":"Ridgewood NJ - PFAS detections"},{"lat":39.7392,"lon":-104.9903,"label":"Denver CO - control"}].
pwsidsNoOptional. Screen specific public water systems by 9-character EPA PWSID (for example ["MI0002310"]) without a coordinate lookup. Combined with any locations supplied above. Example: [].
maxAssetsNoSafety cap on how many locations are screened in one run. Locations beyond the cap are reported in the log and not billed. Example: 250.
includeLeadNoFetch Lead and Copper Rule 90th-percentile tap results and join them to their monitoring periods, so the reported value is dated rather than undated. Example: true.
includePfasNoScreen the system against EPA's UCMR5 occurrence dataset (1.9 million results, 29 PFAS analytes plus lithium). Turn off for a faster run when PFAS is out of scope. Example: true.
simulateOutageNoDiagnostic seam for verifying failure behaviour. Forces one or all EPA sources to fail so you can confirm the actor reports the source as unavailable and never publishes a false clear. Leave as none for normal use. Example: "none".
violationYearsNoHow many years back counts as a recent health-based violation for the screening flags. The full violation history is still summarised regardless. Set 0 to disable the window. Example: 10.
refreshPfasCacheNoRe-download and re-index the UCMR5 occurrence file even if the cached index already matches EPA's current published vintage. Normally unnecessary: the cache is keyed to the file's Last-Modified header and rebuilds itself whenever EPA republishes. Example: false.
runBudgetSecondsNoTotal time budget for all upstream requests including retries. Requests stop rather than retry past this budget, so a long EPA outage fails loudly instead of hanging. Example: 900.
includeViolationsNoFetch the system's full Safe Drinking Water Act violation history from EPA SDWIS and roll it up (health-based, monitoring/reporting, treatment technique, Lead & Copper Rule, public-notification tier). Example: true.
includeEnforcementNoFetch the system's SDWIS formal enforcement action history and report the count and most recent action. Example: true.
maxViolationDetailsNoHow many individual health-based violation records to include in the health_based_violation_details array on each row, newest first. Counts are never truncated. Example: 25.
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses several critical behaviors: it never clears a source that did not answer, reads live from official government sources, describes caching and refresh behavior, and explains the retry budget and failure handling via simulateOutage. This is strong transparency given no annotations are provided.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is verbose and repetitive, repeating phrases like 'Never clears a source that did not answer' and including extensive legal context. It is structured as a single dense paragraph, which hampers quick scanning and comprehension.

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?

The description provides rich context on purpose, data sources, regulatory deadlines, and failure modes, but it omits any description of the output format or structure. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap; the parameter descriptions fill most of the context need.

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

Parameters5/5

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

All 12 parameters have detailed descriptions with examples, edge cases (e.g., violationYears window, refreshPfasCache behavior, simulateOutage diagnostic), and explicit defaults, making semantics exceptionally clear beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly defines the tool's function as screening US coordinates for drinking water quality data, including SDWA violations, lead results, and PFAS detections, and distinguishes it from other environmental screeners by naming the specific data sources and regulatory context.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for drinking water regulatory compliance checks (e.g., LCRI and PFAS deadlines) but does not explicitly compare to alternative tools; however, the specificity of the purpose is high enough to guide selection among sibling screeners.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/malonestar/gov-data-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server