environ-mcp

查询站点列表

list_stations

Lists environmental monitoring stations a bound user can access, including station IDs, names, codes, addresses, and online status. Use it to see which stations are available within the user's permissions.

Instructions

列出当前绑定用户有权限查看的环境监测站点（站点 ID、名称、编码、地址、在线状态）。用户问「我有哪些站点」「XX 站在哪」时用这个。用户给了具体关键字（地名、行业词）时，优先用 search_stations 精确搜索。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_stations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	返回条数，默认 50
`search`	No	按站点名称/编码模糊搜索，可选

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.5Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses that results are permission-scoped to the bound user and enumerates the returned fields, which is meaningful added context. It stops short of stating that it is strictly read-only or how empty/unauthorized results behave, so a small gap remains.

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 sentences, all load-bearing: the first defines output and scope, the second and third define usage and routing. The most important information (what is listed) is front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

For a zero-required-param read tool with full schema coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient: purpose, scope, return fields, and the sibling routing rule are all covered. The only untold details (pagination behavior, behavior when the user has no bound stations) are modest omissions for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'limit' (default 50, max 200) and 'search' (fuzzy on name/code) are already fully documented. The description only indirectly hints that keyword filtering belongs in search_stations rather than here; it adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('列出…环境监测站点') and adds both the scope ('当前绑定用户有权限查看') and the exact fields returned (站点 ID、名称、编码、地址、在线状态). It also contrasts with the sibling search_stations, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

It states explicit trigger utterances ('我有哪些站点', 'XX 站在哪') and an explicit routing rule away from this tool ('用户给了具体关键字…优先用 search_stations 精确搜索'). Both the when and the when-not are present with the alternative named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server