get_alertsActive NWS weather alerts for Crosby, TX. Returns an empty list when none are active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| alerts | Yes | ||
| location | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "alerts": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "event": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "expires": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "headline": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "severity": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "location": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "location",
+ "count",
+ "alerts"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's burden is lower. It adds context that the tool returns an empty list when no alerts are active, which is useful but not extensive. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 parameters, a simple read operation, and an output schema present, the description covers all essential information: what the tool returns (active alerts) and the edge case (empty list when none active). No gaps remain.
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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.
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 it retrieves active NWS weather alerts for a specific location (Crosby, TX). The verb 'get' and resource 'alerts' are specific, and the location scoping distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve other types of data (air quality, news, etc.).
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident from the name and sibling tool names. The description indicates it returns an empty list when no alerts are active, implying it should be used to check for active alerts in that area.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.