Skip to main content
Glama
malonestar

gov-data-mcp

by malonestar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fws-wetlands-proximity-screener

Screen USFWS National Wetlands Inventory data by latitude/longitude to detect nearby wetlands, Cowardin types, acreage, and Section 404 dredge-and-fill risk.

Instructions

USFWS Wetlands Proximity Screener - Section 404 Site Risk API. Wetland due-diligence API for site selection: per lat/lon site, wetland presence within radius, Cowardin classification codes/systems, wetland types, total acreage nearby and a Section 404 dredge-and-fill screening flag. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory open data. CHOOSE THIS for National Wetlands Inventory polygons and their decode columns within a radius. It does NOT answer Clean Water Act §404 jurisdiction — for surface-water features and relative permanence use nhd-surface-water-404-screener. The two are usually needed together. 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 $0.008 per result ($8 per 1,000). Lower on paid Apify plans, down to $2.40 per 1,000. Nothing is charged when a run fails. Store page: https://apify.com/malonestar/fws-wetlands-proximity-screener

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetsYesSites to screen for wetlands. Each entry is an object { "lat": number, "lon": number, "label": "optional name" }. Also accepts "lat,lon" strings or [lat, lon] arrays. One dataset row (one billed result) is produced per asset, even when no wetland is found; a bad entry yields an ERROR row and the run continues. Example: [{"lat":36.3736,"lon":-89.385,"label":"Reelfoot Lake, TN - site inside a mapped lake"},{"lat":35.2216,"lon":-75.6913,"label":"Cape Hatteras, NC - estuarine tidal marsh"},{"lat":45.8918,"lon":-123.9615,"label":"Cannon Beach, OR - marine shoreline"},{"lat":47.5,"lon":-99,"label":"Prairie pothole, ND - farmed and drained wetlands"},{"lat":39.7392,"lon":-104.9903,"label":"Denver, CO - urban infill, n…(truncated).
maxResultsNoMaximum number of assets processed in one run (1-2000). One result row is emitted (and billed) per asset. Default 500. Applied by default if omitted: 500.
radiusMetersNoRadius around each asset used for the wetland-presence check, in meters (10-5000). Screened as a TRUE circle. Default 300 (~984 ft, roughly a parcel-scale buffer). Example: 300.
computeNearestDistanceNoWhen on (default), the actor measures the true distance and bearing to the nearest NWI wetland polygon instead of reporting a largest-acreage proxy. Costs up to ~10 small extra requests per site. Turn off for very large batches; nearest_wetland_* then falls back to the largest-acreage feature and nearest_basis says so. Example: true.
nearestSearchRadiusMetersNoHow far out to look for the nearest wetland, in meters (up to 8000). Independent of the screening radius, so a site can correctly read 'no wetland within 300 m' and still report the closest one 1,391 m away. Default 1609 (1 mile). Raised automatically to at least the screening radius. Example: 1609.

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 by disclosing the billing model ($0.008/result, discounts to $2.40 per 1,000, no charge on failure) and reconciling the readOnlyHint=false with reality: read-only toward the government source, yet each call starts a metered Apify run. This is exactly the side-effect context the annotations flag but don't explain.

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 purpose, then usage routing, then cost and side effects, so the ordering is sensible. The pricing passage and trailing store URL are somewhat verbose, but each block carries distinct, useful information, so it stays reasonably tight.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the per-site outputs (presence, Cowardin codes, acreage, 404 flag). Combined with the radius/nearest-distance semantics surfaced in the schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though per-row failure behavior is only detailed in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents assets, maxResults, radiusMeters, computeNearestDistance and nearestSearchRadiusMeters in depth (including the true-circle screening and nearest-distance tradeoff). The description adds only the framing 'per lat/lon site' and output content, which is baseline value when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('wetland due-diligence API', 'USFWS Wetlands Proximity Screener - Section 404 Site Risk API') and enumerates the outputs (Cowardin codes/systems, wetland types, acreage, Section 404 screening flag). It names the sibling nhd-surface-water-404-screener and describes the boundary between them, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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 National Wetlands Inventory polygons... It does NOT answer Clean Water Act §404 jurisdiction — for surface-water features and relative permanence use nhd-surface-water-404-screener. The two are usually needed together.' This gives explicit when-to-use, when-not, the alternative, and a co-usage note.

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