Skip to main content
Glama

Community Resilience Estimates Tool

community_resilience_tool
Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess neighborhood social vulnerability to disasters using Community Resilience Estimates. Analyze rates of vulnerability factors like poverty, disability, and housing crowding at the tract level.

Instructions

Retrieve community resilience and social vulnerability data from the Community Resilience Estimates (CRE). Track how socially vulnerable every neighborhood is to disaster impacts. Data includes rates and counts of individuals with zero, one-two, or three-plus components of social vulnerability (disability, single-parent households, limited English, poverty, no vehicle, crowded housing, group quarters, age vulnerability). Perfect for neighborhood-level analysis, disaster preparedness assessment, and real estate applications. Available at tract level for detailed neighborhood insights.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNoYear for community resilience estimates. Available years: 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023. Default: 2023.2023
variablesNoArray of resilience variables to retrieve. Common: PRED0_PE (% with zero vulnerability factors), PRED12_PE (% with 1-2 factors), PRED3_PE (% with 3+ factors), PRED0_E (count with zero factors), PRED12_E (count with 1-2 factors), PRED3_E (count with 3+ factors), POPUNI (population universe). Default: [PRED0_PE, PRED12_PE, PRED3_PE, POPUNI].
geographyYesGeographic level to query. Options: us (national), state, county, tract. Tract level provides neighborhood-level detail.
stateNoState FIPS code (2 digits). Required for county and tract geographies, optional for state geography to get a specific state.
countyNoCounty FIPS code (3 digits). Required for tract geography, optional to get a specific county.
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about the data's nature (tracking vulnerability) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or authentication requirements. With annotations covering safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description is mostly concise with five sentences, front-loading the purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'neighborhood-level' mentioned twice), but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description adequately explains the data source, use cases, geographic levels, and variable types. It does not cover output format, but that is reasonable for a read-only data retrieval tool without output 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 all parameters. The description mentions data components (rates, counts) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides for each parameter. Baseline 3 is suitable.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving community resilience and social vulnerability data from CRE. It specifies the data includes rates and counts of vulnerability components. While it distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing neighborhood-level analysis and disaster preparedness, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like poverty_statistics_tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for neighborhood-level analysis, disaster preparedness, and real estate applications, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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/mattpodwysocki/census-mcp-server'

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