[open-meteo · risk:low] Current temperature, conditions, humidity, and wind for a latitude/longitude, from Open-Meteo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Latitude of the place (e.g. 37.77 for San Francisco). | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude of the place (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 must fully disclose behavior. It lists returned fields (temperature, conditions, humidity, wind) but does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or authentication. Additionally, there is a contradiction between the tool name ('forecast') and description ('current'), which misleads about the tool's 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?
The description is a single sentence plus a metadata prefix. It is concise and front-loads the source and risk level, but the prefix could be considered unnecessary noise.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to fully specify what is returned (e.g., units, format) or clarify the current vs. forecast discrepancy. The tool has only two well-documented parameters, but the missing distinction undermines completeness.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions for latitude and longitude. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides no extra parameter context.
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 that the tool retrieves current temperature, conditions, humidity, and wind for a given latitude/longitude from Open-Meteo. It specifies a verb (implied 'get') and resource, but there is a minor ambiguity between the tool name ('forecast') and description ('current').
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like duvera__weather_current and duvera__weather_air_quality exist but are not mentioned, and there is no discussion of prerequisites or use cases.
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.
