SnowSure — Snow & Ski

Compare forecast models

compare_forecasts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare snow forecasts across 7 weather models (ECMWF, GFS, GEM, JMA, ICON, Météo-France, Met Norway) for a resort. Shows model agreement and uncertainty. Use for forecast reliability queries. The model table and days 8–14 need SnowSure Pro, or a favourite resort when signed in; otherwise this returns the seven-day blend alone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No	Resort slug or name, e.g. "portillo" or "Portillo". Required unless `resort` is given.
`resort`	No	Same as `slug`: the resort slug or name. Pass either one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`markdown`	No	Human-readable markdown summary of the tool result (may be omitted when structuredContent carries a typed payload; content[0].text always has the prose).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / resort

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Same as `slug`: the resort slug or name. Pass either one.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / slug / description

Previous value: -"Resort slug to compare forecasts for"New value: +"Resort slug or name, e.g. \"portillo\" or \"Portillo\". Required unless `resort` is given."

removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "slug"
-]
```

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / markdown / description

Previous value: -"Human-readable markdown summary of the tool result."New value: +"Human-readable markdown summary of the tool result (may be omitted when structuredContent carries a typed payload; content[0].text always has the prose)."

removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "markdown"
-]
```

First observedJun 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that 'the model table and days 8–14 need SnowSure Pro, or a favourite resort when signed in; otherwise this returns the seven-day blend alone.' This discloses paywall/auth-dependent output changes, which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know and is not present in the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, and the paywall condition are all front-loaded and tightly written. No filler or redundant detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only comparison tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: the exact models compared, what the output shows (agreement, uncertainty), the intended use case, and the critical restriction on accessing full model data without Pro. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both `slug` and `resort` already documented as 'Resort slug or name...'. The description only says 'for a resort' without adding any extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. It neither adds nor undermines schema-provided semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Compare snow forecasts across 7 weather models... for a resort.' It goes beyond a generic action by naming the exact models and the unique value ('shows model agreement and uncertainty'), which clearly differentiates it from single-forecast siblings like get_weather_forecast.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Use for forecast reliability queries' gives explicit when-to-use context. However, it does not name any alternative tool or state when not to use this tool versus, say, get_weather_forecast or get_snow_report. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SnowSure — Snow & Ski tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?