ThinAir Geo

weather

Read-only

Get current and forecast weather for a location, including severe weather alerts and minute-by-minute precipitation. Use for destination conditions, travel planning, or route risk assessment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lat`	No	Latitude
`lon`	No	Longitude
`units`	No	Temperature/wind units (default: imperial)
`location`	No	Place name or address (will be geocoded)
`forecast_days`	No	Forecast days 1-16 (default 5)
`include_alerts`	No	Include severe weather alerts and warnings (default: true)
`include_forecast`	No	Include multi-day hourly forecast
`include_minutely`	No	Include minute-by-minute precipitation for next 60 min

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	No
`alerts`	No
`geojson`	No
`metrics`	No
`summary`	No	Map of scalar facts the LLM should surface verbatim
`display_hint`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds feature context (alerts, minutely precipitation) but does not disclose behaviors like geocoding of location strings or how conflicts between lat/lon and location are resolved. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then relevant use cases. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the 8 parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and use cases well. It lacks a note about how the tool geocodes location or how lat/lon vs. location interact, but this is not critical given the schema and typical usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It correctly implies location and forecast related parameters but does not elaborate on their 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current and forecast weather') and highlights distinguishing features (severe weather alerts, minute-by-minute precipitation). It clearly sets the tool apart from sibling tools like geocoding and directions.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided ('destination conditions, travel planning, or route risk assessment'). However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest specific alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All ThinAir Geo tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Overlapping tools (geocode vs geocode_structured, explore vs search_places, map_match vs trace_attributes) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, with cross-references guiding correct selection. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun pattern (geocode, reverse_geocode, batch_geocode, search_places, resolve_intersection), but there are minor deviations: some tools use noun-only names (directions, traffic, weather) and a couple use noun_verb order (place_get, geofence_contains). This creates slight inconsistency but remains readable.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the set is slightly heavy but each tool earns its place by covering a distinct geospatial function. The breadth spans geocoding, routing, places, telematics, geofencing, traffic, weather, and account management, making the count reasonable for a comprehensive geo API.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for a geospatial server: forward, reverse, batch, structured, and intersection geocoding; routing, matrix, and isochrones; place search, exploration, and ID lookup; map matching, trace attributes, and point snapping; plus geofencing, traffic, weather, and quota management. No critical gaps or dead ends apparent.

Resources

Need Help?