Skip to main content
Glama
malonestar

gov-data-mcp

by malonestar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

site-due-diligence-bundle

Screen property coordinates across 20 federal environmental layers for a go/caution/no-go verdict and 0-100 fatal-flaw score.

Instructions

Environmental Due Diligence Bundle: 20-Layer Site Scorecard. Environmental due diligence at $0.10 per property - one row per site, not per layer. Lat/lon plus radius returns a go/caution/no-go fatal-flaw verdict and 0-100 score across 20 federal layers: EPA contamination, FEMA flood, NWI wetlands, ESA habitat, karst, landslide, levee, dams, CBRS, pipelines. CHOOSE THIS when you want one combined go / caution / no-go verdict for a coordinate across many unrelated layers. It is NOT an ASTM records review: its contamination layer reads RCRA and TRI through ECHO only and omits coordinate-less Superfund records. For a contamination-first question 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 $0.1 per result ($100 per 1,000). Lower on paid Apify plans, down to $30.00 per 1,000. Nothing is charged when a run fails. Store page: https://apify.com/malonestar/site-due-diligence-bundle

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetsYesList of sites to run the full fatal-flaw scorecard on. Each item is an object with numeric lat and lon (WGS84 decimal degrees) and an optional label. One billable scorecard row is returned per successfully screened asset -- invalid coordinates are returned in a separate non-billable dataset. Example: [{"lat":29.7355,"lon":-95.2601,"label":"Houston Ship Channel parcel"}]. Example: [{"lat":29.7355,"lon":-95.2601,"label":"Houston Ship Channel industrial site, TX"},{"lat":44.29,"lon":-105.5,"label":"Gillette, WY greenfield (coal-country)"}].
maxAssetsNoMaximum number of assets to screen from the list (safety cap). Extra assets beyond this are ignored. Applied by default if omitted: 250.
radiusMilesNoSearch radius in statute miles for the proximity layers (EPA contamination, ESA critical habitat, transmission grid, wildfire flag, landslide nearby-search, CWA 303(d) impaired waters, tank/spill registries, gas pipelines, NWI wetlands, NRHP historic resources, and NID dams). Point-in-polygon-only layers (protected lands, flood/NRI county, seismic, IRA energy community, karst, USACE levee, CalFire FHSZ, NAAQS nonattainment, CBRS) ignore this. Accepts 0.25 to 25; smaller means a tighter on-site screen. Example: 1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description explains why by disclosing that each call starts a metered run on the caller's Apify account, billed $0.10 per result with tiered pricing, and that failed runs are not charged. It also clarifies the read-only scope ('never writes to any external system'), which is consistent with rather than contradicting the false readOnlyHint.

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?

The text is dense and front-loaded: identity, then choose/not, then cost/side effects, then store link. Every sentence carries information, though the layer enumeration and pricing detail make it longer than strictly necessary.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ('go/caution/no-go fatal-flaw verdict and 0-100 score'), the cost model, the billing granularity, and the scope limitations like omitted coordinate-less Superfund records. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in depth; the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantics (e.g. 'one row per site, not per layer' and 'smaller means a tighter on-site screen'), which does not meaningfully exceed what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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+resource (environmental due diligence bundle producing a 20-layer site scorecard) and enumerates the concrete layers and verdict format. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling epa-contaminated-site-screener and other point tools, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

Explicitly says 'CHOOSE THIS when you want one combined go/caution/no-go verdict for a coordinate across many unrelated layers' and gives the when-not ('NOT an ASTM records review') plus the alternative ('For a contamination-first question use epa-contaminated-site-screener'). This is a complete when/when-not/alternative routing.

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