Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
environ-mcp

environ-mcp

by renhail
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

查询站点实时数据

get_realtime

Fetches current pollutant concentrations and units for a specified monitoring station, enabling users to check present readings by station ID or name.

Instructions

查询站点当前最新的实时监测数据（各污染因子浓度值及单位）。用户问「XX 站点现在数据多少」「现在 SO2 多少」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_realtime"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stationYes站点 ID 或站点名称（名称支持模糊匹配），如 814 或「南明区监测站」

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.5

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content (concentration values and units) but says nothing about data freshness/latency, behavior when the station is not bound (siblings check_bind and bind_user imply that prerequisite), or how fuzzy-name matches resolve to multiple stations.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, trigger examples second. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical on return values could be trimmed since it is the only detail not strictly needed to select the tool.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. It nonetheless omits the binding prerequisite hinted at by check_bind/bind_user and any statement about data recency, which matter for an agent deciding whether the result is trustworthy.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the station field, including fuzzy name matching and an example. The description only restates the station-oriented intent without adding format or resolution guidance beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource (查询站点当前最新的实时监测数据) and states the payload contents (各污染因子浓度值及单位). It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_hour_data through the word 实时/最新, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 supplies two concrete trigger utterances (「XX 站点现在数据多少」「现在 SO2 多少」), which makes the when-to-use condition easy to match. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to get_hour_data / get_overview as alternatives.

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