[duvera · risk:low] Current temperature, conditions, wind, and humidity for a latitude/longitude (Open-Meteo). Use geo.geocode first if you only have a city or 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool returns current weather data and requires no account, implying a read-only, public API. But it does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or potential errors. The description is minimal but not misleading.
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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a usage tip and a note on authentication. Every part is relevant and quickly conveys the tool's purpose and key usage guidance.
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 two clear parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisite tools, and authentication. It could mention that it provides current conditions only (not historical forecasts), but that is implied by 'current.' Overall, sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 each parameter clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'for a latitude/longitude.' It does not provide examples or format details, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.
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 specifies the verb+resource: 'Current temperature, conditions, wind, and humidity for a latitude/longitude'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like open_meteo__weather_forecast and duvera__weather_air_quality by stating 'current' and listing specific weather elements.
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 explicit guidance: 'Use geo.geocode first if you only have a city or place name.' It also mentions 'No account required,' which sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for forecasts), though the sibling list is available.
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.
