Skip to main content
Glama
rundata-re

rundata · La Réunion 974 en direct

by rundata-re
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Qualité de l'eau à La Réunion : robinet et baignade

qualite_eau
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check tap water potability by network or bathing water quality by beach and river pool in La Réunion, with official ARS sample results, compliance status and over-limit germs or parameters.

Instructions

Qualité de l'eau à La Réunion (974), d'après les analyses de l'ARS : eau du robinet réseau par réseau (dernière analyse, conformité, germes ou paramètres au-dessus des limites sur 6 mois) et eau de baignade des plages et bassins contrôlés (Hermitage, Boucan Canot, La Saline, Saint-Pierre, Étang-Salé, Grande Anse, bassin Bleu, bassin Dinan…), prélèvement par prélèvement. Pour : « l'eau du robinet est potable à Cilaos ? », « eau non conforme à Ravine des Cabris ? », « on peut se baigner à l'Hermitage ? », « l'eau du bassin Dinan est propre ? ». Avec la baignade, la règle requin de l'arrêté préfectoral (bande des 300 m) et les zones permises : ne jamais dire qu'un endroit est sans requin ou sans risque, ni qu'une zone est ouverte aujourd'hui, renvoyer au drapeau sur place. Les avis « ne pas boire » en cours sont dans coupures_eau. / Tap water and bathing water quality in Réunion Island (official sanitary control).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eauNo« robinet » (eau potable) ou « baignade » ; vide = d'après la question et le lieu. / Tap or bathing water; empty = guessed.
lieuNoCommune, quartier, plage ou bassin (« Ravine des Cabris », « plage de l'Hermitage », « bassin Bleu »). / A town, district, beach or river pool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.190.11
    • changedInput schema / properties / eau / description
      Previous value: -"« robinet » (eau potable) ou « baignade » ; vide = d'après la question et le lieu. / Tap or bathing water; empty = guessed."New value: +"« robinet » (eau potable) ou « baignade » ; vide = d'après la question et le lieu. / Tap or bathing water; empty = guessed."
  2. Addedv0.128.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/safe, and the description adds substantial operational context on top: data provenance (ARS), freshness semantics (dernière analyse, 6 months), per-sample granularity, and, critically, a safety rule that the agent must never assert a site is shark-free, risk-free, or open today and must defer to the on-site flag. It also flags where the 'do not drink' verdicts live (coupures_eau), which is exactly the kind of cross-tool caveat annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then triggers, then the safety caveat — a sound ordering with no filler argument. It is on the long side and the trailing English gloss plus repeat of the 'baignade' caveat add modest redundancy, but every clause carries information.

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 still conveys what comes back (last analysis, compliance, germs/parameters over limits, sample by sample) and how results should be framed verbally, including the shark-zone disclaimer. Nothing an agent needs to call or narrate results is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value for `lieu` by enumerating the accepted place space (Hermitage, Boucan Canot, La Saline, Saint-Pierre, Étang-Salé, Grande Anse, bassin Bleu, bassin Dinan), which goes beyond the schema's short examples. It confirms that `eau` may be left empty and inferred from the question and place.

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 domain (drinking and bathing water quality in Réunion, from ARS analyses) with the exact granularity: per-network last analysis, compliance and 6-month exceedances, and bathing sites sample by sample. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling coupures_eau for active 'do not drink' notices, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Four concrete example questions ('l'eau du robinet est potable à Cilaos ?', 'on peut se baigner à l'Hermitage ?') make the intended trigger unmistakable, and the pointer to coupures_eau covers the main exclusion. However, it never explicitly states when *not* to use it for the neighbouring concerns (restrictions_eau, temperature_mer), so the alternative routing is only partially mapped.

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