Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
environ-mcp

environ-mcp

by renhail
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

查询站点小时数据

get_hour_data

Retrieve hourly monitoring data for a specified station and time range, defaulting to today from midnight to now.

Instructions

查询站点指定时间范围内的小时级监测数据序列。默认返回当天 0 点至当前时刻。用户问「XX 站昨天各小时数据」「近 6 小时趋势」时用这个。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "station": "<station>"
    },
    "name": "get_hour_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endTimeNo结束时间（秒级 Unix 时间戳），可选，默认当前时间
stationYes站点 ID 或站点名称（支持模糊匹配，也可直接传地名/行业关键字）
beginTimeNo开始时间（秒级 Unix 时间戳），可选，默认当天 0 点

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.5

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the default time window and hourly granularity. It says nothing about how large a range is allowed, what permissions are needed, or how the series is returned, which matters for an unannotated read tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences: purpose, default behavior, then when-to-use examples. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple three-parameter read tool the core is covered, but there is no output schema, and the description does not hint at what the returned series contains (fields, units, ordering) or any range limits. That leaves a modest but real completeness gap.

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 station and both timestamps are already documented, including the same default-window behavior the description restates. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('查询站点...小时级监测数据序列') and pins down the granularity and time scoping, which clearly separates it from realtime/overview-type siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives concrete trigger examples ('XX 站昨天各小时数据', '近 6 小时趋势') and states the default window, so an agent knows when this tool fits. It stops short of exclusions or naming get_realtime as the alternative for live values, which is the one remaining routing gap.

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