Skip to main content
Glama

DataQuoll

by io.dataquoll

Gauge reading history (paid tier)

list_gauge_readings
Read-only

Historical water level readings for one gauge. Free tier is blocked (the free surface is current readings on /gauges and the 6-hour window on /gauges/{id}). Starter tier limited to 1 year lookback, Developer and Business to 5 years, Pro and Enterprise unlimited. Retention ladder: raw 30 days, hourly rollups 90 days, daily forever — plus full-resolution raw inside flood-event windows kept forever. interval=auto picks the finest granularity available for the requested window.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
aboveNoOnly readings at/above this published flood classification for the gauge
afterNoStart of range (ISO 8601, inclusive). Tier-limited.
limitNo
beforeNoEnd of range (ISO 8601, exclusive). Defaults to now.
cursorNoPagination cursor from meta.nextCursor (ISO timestamp keyset)
intervalNoraw, hourly, daily, or auto (default)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals a detailed retention ladder, tier lookback limits, flood-event window preservation, and the behavior of interval=auto. This gives the agent concrete expectations about data availability that are not encoded anywhere else.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and packs tier/retention details into a dense paragraph. Every sentence earns its place, though the tier and retention lists could be slightly more scannable. No filler or repetition.

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 7-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, tier restrictions, retention behavior, and interval semantics. It does not explain ordering or default limit, but those are not critical for correct invocation and some are implied by the schema.

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 71%, and the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds meaningful context for interval=auto and clarifies that after is tier-limited, which helps an agent choose valid values. It does not add much about limit or cursor, but the existing schema descriptions cover those reasonably.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: historical water level readings for one gauge. The parenthetical contrast with current readings on /gauges and /gauges/{id} clearly distinguishes this from sibling listing/detail tools. An agent can identify the tool's core function immediately.

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?

The description gives explicit tier-based guidance, including that free tier is blocked and points to the free current-reading endpoints as alternatives. It does not explicitly name sibling MCP tools or state 'use this when you need readings older than 6 hours,' but the context is clear enough for selection.

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

All DataQuoll toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions are detailed enough to separate declaration lookups, hazard history, incidents, events, and gauges. A couple of pairs could still be confused at first glance, such as declarations_by_point vs hazard_history_by_point or list_events vs list_incidents, but the descriptions resolve the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming largely follows a clear get_/list_ convention for single resources versus collections, with lookup-style names like declarations_by_point and declarations_by_postcode. Minor deviations such as incident_snapshot, nearby_incidents, and the singular declaration_by_agrn prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is on the heavier side, but the count is justified by the broad domain covering current incidents, historical incidents, clustered events, declarations, river gauges, hazard history, schema discovery, attribution, and feed health. Each tool appears to earn its place, though the set is larger than the ideal 3-15 range for a tightly scoped server.

Completeness5/5

The surface is remarkably complete for a read-only emergency/disaster data API: current and historical incidents, event clustering, incident snapshots, nearby queries, declaration lookups by multiple keys, gauge readings and summaries, hazard history, schema enums, attribution, and source feed status are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated domain.

Resources