Get a Detailed Facility Report for one facility by its EPA Registry ID: name, address, permits held, and per-statute (CAA/CWA/RCRA/SDWA) compliance and inspection summaries. Use epa_facility_search first to obtain the registry_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| registry_id | Yes | EPA Registry ID (FRS ID), the numeric facility identifier returned by epa_facility_search (e.g. '110001136271'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the report contents, including the specific statutes covered (CAA/CWA/RCRA/SDWA), but does not disclose behaviors such as data freshness, authorization requirements, response size, or failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The first sentence leads with the action and resource, then lists contents; the second gives the prerequisite workflow. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is largely complete: it identifies how to obtain the input and what the report contains. The only minor gap is the lack of a more precise return structure, but the listed categories are sufficient for an agent to decide to call the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with registry_id fully documented as the EPA Registry ID returned by epa_facility_search and an example provided. The description reinforces the same information but does not meaningfully add beyond what the input schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Detailed Facility Report for one facility'), and the key input (EPA Registry ID), then enumerates the report contents: name, address, permits, and per-statute compliance summaries. It is clear and distinguishable from search-style siblings like epa_facility_search, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with epa_facility_compliance or other EPA detail tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: this tool is for one facility already identified by a registry_id, and it explicitly instructs the agent to obtain that ID via epa_facility_search first. It does not, however, explain when to choose this over closely related siblings such as epa_facility_compliance or epa_enforcement_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool clusters overlap heavily—company due-diligence and risk tools (counterparty_risk_score, company_trust_check, entity_dossier, issuer_diligence_dossier, resolve_entity, entity_resolve), carrier vetting tools, sanctions screening tools, and recall tools all have subtle boundary distinctions. While descriptions are detailed, an agent navigating 294 tools will frequently struggle to pick the right one.
Most tools follow a readable snake_case domain-prefix pattern (fdic_, edgar_, sanctions_, congress_), which helps. However, verb placement is inconsistent—search_available_datasets vs cdc_dataset_query, resolve_entity vs entity_resolve—and synonyms like search, lookup, get, detail, fetch, and status are used interchangeably.
294 tools is an extreme number for a single MCP server, far beyond what an agent can reliably hold in context or select from accurately. The presence of tool-group discovery helpers mitigates but does not solve the fundamental scale problem.
The data breadth is genuinely extensive, covering finance, health, legal, real estate, transportation, energy, cyber, education, and many other domains, often with generic query fallbacks. Still, some capabilities are shallow or incomplete—package tracking stops at a link, property tools are demo-only in places, and caselaw coverage is limited—so it is not a fully complete surface.