[duvera · risk:low] Current air quality (US AQI, PM2.5, PM10, ozone) for a latitude/longitude. Use geo.geocode first if you only have a place name. No account required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Latitude of the location (e.g. 37.77 for San Francisco). | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude of the location (e.g. -122.42 for San Francisco). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies 'current' air quality (not historical/forecast), but does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or authentication. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but minimal.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without extraneous words. Every part adds value: tool purpose, key data points, required input, and usage hint.
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?
For a simple tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description lists the output metrics (US AQI, PM2.5, PM10, ozone) and provides usage context (use geocode first). It is mostly complete, though could mention units more explicitly.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little beyond schema. It mentions the input is latitude/longitude for the location, but does not elaborate on format constraints or examples beyond what schema already provides.
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 clearly states it provides current air quality data (US AQI, PM2.5, PM10, ozone) for a given latitude/longitude. It explicitly distinguishes from geocoding by instructing to use geo.geocode first if only a place name is available.
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 includes when to use (current air quality for lat/lng) and a prerequisite action (use geo.geocode for place names). It also notes 'No account required.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond geocode.
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.
Each tool is prefixed with its service name, and within each service, tools have distinct actions (e.g., mail_read vs. availability_find). The duvera tools cover different subdomains like dev, finance, and food with no overlap, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow the pattern service__action_object or service__category_action, using lowercase with underscores. The order of verb and noun varies slightly (e.g., package_track vs. boardingpass_show), but the naming is highly predictable and readable.
With 52 tools, the server is large but justified as a gateway aggregating many external services. Each tool corresponds to a common task for its service, so no tool feels extraneous, though the total number is high.
The tool surface covers a wide array of services but only provides one or two basic operations per service (mostly read-only). While this suits a quick-lookup gateway, deeper workflows (e.g., creating or updating resources) are missing, leaving gaps for many use cases.
