Skip to main content
Glama
malonestar

gov-data-mcp

by malonestar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

epa-drinking-water-quality-screener

Screen US coordinates against EPA public water system service areas to check SDWA violations, lead 90th-percentile results, and PFAS detections.

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. CHOOSE THIS for public water-system quality: SDWA violations, lead 90th-percentile results and PFAS occurrence. It is NOT a property contamination screen — for soil and groundwater records at a site use epa-contaminated-site-screener. Reads live from the official government source. COST AND SIDE EFFECTS: read-only with respect to the government source — it never writes to any external system — but each call starts a metered run on YOUR Apify account, billed $0.012 per Drinking water screening result ($12 per 1,000). Lower on paid Apify plans, down to $3.60 per 1,000. Nothing is charged when a run fails. 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that it is read-only against the government source but each call starts a metered, billable run on the caller's Apify account ($0.012/result, $3.60–$12 per 1,000, nothing charged on failure), and that it "never clears a source that did not answer." The readOnlyHint=false is thereby reconciled rather than contradicted (the write is run creation, not external mutation), and non-idempotency is implied by per-call metering.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with scope, then routing guidance, then cost/side effects, which is the right order. It is on the long side and the pricing breakdown plus store URL are somewhat promotional, but each block still earns its place for a paid, metered tool.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key semantic behaviors (NO_SERVICE_AREA row for unmapped locations, dated lead results, health_based_violation_details) and the cost model. Return-shape detail is partial but sufficient; nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema itself is exceptionally rich (examples, semantics, and rationale for each of the 12 params). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so this sits at the baseline 3 — the schema carries the full burden and does so adequately.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (screen any US coordinate for the public water system serving it) and enumerates the data domains: SDWA violations, Lead & Copper Rule 90th-percentile results, UCMR5 PFAS detections. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling epa-contaminated-site-screener, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

"CHOOSE THIS for public water-system quality" plus an explicit exclusion: "It is NOT a property contamination screen — for soil and groundwater records at a site use epa-contaminated-site-screener." This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern done cleanly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools