Skip to main content
Glama

SnowSure — Snow & Ski

by ai.snowsure

Live snow & forecast

get_resort
Read-onlyIdempotent

Single-resort data with a REQUIRED card parameter that picks the interactive UI. card=guide → resort info card (elevation, lifts, season dates). card=photos → photo gallery carousel. card=snow → snow conditions card (score, base depth, forecast). card=full → detailed markdown only, no card. "Resort guide" → card=guide. "Photos/gallery" → card=photos. "Conditions/forecast" / "is it open right now, base depth, lifts open of total" → card=snow (open status, base depth, and lifts open of total). Prefer get_resort_info / get_resort_photos when available (same cards).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardYesUI card type: guide (resort info), photos (gallery carousel), snow (conditions), full (text only)
slugYesResort slug identifier (e.g., "aspen-mountain", "niseko-hanazono-resort", "jackson-hole")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resortNoStructured resort payload for inline widget rendering.
markdownYesHuman-readable markdown summary (required for ChatGPT Instant mode).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: the tool returns an 'interactive UI' based on card parameter, and details content of each card. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is somewhat lengthy but necessary to cover all four card types and usage mappings. Front-loads the key point about the required card parameter. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list) but still effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 card options, 2 parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers usage: explains each card's content, gives request mapping, and provides alternatives. No gaps remain.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). Description adds significant value: natural language mapping for the card parameter (e.g., 'Resort guide' → card=guide) and example slug values. This enriches the schema definitions.

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 clearly states it provides 'Single-resort data' and explains each card type (guide, photos, snow, full). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_resort_info and get_resort_photos, which are mentioned as alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit instructions: 'REQUIRED card parameter', mappings from user requests to card values, and a preference note to use get_resort_info/get_resort_photos when available. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters have unclear boundaries: get_resort overlaps with get_resort_info and get_resort_photos, ask_snowdata competes with compare_resorts and the El Niño tools, and get_snow_history / get_season_leaderboard / get_insights cover similar retrospective ground. The descriptions try hard to route agents, but with 45 tools an agent will frequently have to choose between near-equivalent options.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_resort_info, compare_resorts, find_best_powder, book_lodging, save_resort. Minor deviations like ask_snowdata and the very similar get_resort vs get_resort_info names prevent a 5, but overall the naming convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

45 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and puts a heavy selection burden on the agent. While the domain is broad, many tools are narrow variations on conditions, history, road data, or trip planning that could be consolidated or exposed as configurable parameters.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers an impressively wide lifecycle: resort discovery, photos, live conditions, forecasts, history, comparisons, passes, flights, lodging, road status, alerts, and user saved resorts. Minor gaps exist such as no lift-ticket booking, no lesson/rental booking, and flight search only produces links rather than a booking flow, but agents can generally complete core snow-trip workflows.

Resources