Get current weather conditions for a location in the United States. Perfect for 'What's the weather like in [US location]?' questions. Covers all US states, territories, and coastal waters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | US location as coordinates (lat,lng) in decimal degrees. Example: '40.7128,-74.0060' for New York City. Must be within US boundaries including states, territories (PR, VI, AS, GU, MP), and coastal waters. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only mentions geographic coverage. It omits critical details: data freshness (real-time vs cached), returned units (imperial/metric), error behavior for out-of-bounds coordinates, and what specific weather fields are returned.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, example use case, and coverage clarification. Information is front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence.
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?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool, but given the lack of output schema, the description misses the opportunity to describe what weather data fields (temperature, humidity, wind, etc.) the tool returns. Functional but incomplete.
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 has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the coordinate format and US boundaries constraint. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 provides a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('current weather conditions'), and geographic scope ('United States'). The term 'current' effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_weather_forecast' and 'get_hourly_forecast'.
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 a helpful example question format ('What's the weather like in...'), implying natural language queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus forecast-oriented siblings or warnings about the coordinate format requirement.
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.