Maine Burn Permit MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_fire_dangerA | Checks the current fire danger rating for a specific town in Maine to see if burning is allowed. |
| apply_for_burn_permitB | Automates the process of applying for a Maine open burn permit. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one is for applying for a permit, and the other is for checking fire danger conditions. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (apply_for_burn_permit and check_fire_danger), using snake_case and descriptive action-oriented names. This consistency aids in predictability and readability.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for its apparent scope of managing burn permits in Maine. Key operations like checking permit status, updating permits, or canceling permits are missing, which limits functionality and may require workarounds.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a burn permit management domain. It lacks essential CRUD operations such as viewing existing permits, updating permit details, or canceling permits, leaving significant gaps that could cause agent failures in real-world workflows.