Get weather forecast for car travel destinations. Provides detailed weather predictions including temperature, precipitation, and road conditions for optimal travel planning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | End date for forecast in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional) | |
| location | Yes | City name for weather forecast (e.g., 'İstanbul', 'Ankara') | |
| start_date | Yes | Start date for forecast in YYYY-MM-DD format |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that results include temperature, precipitation, and road conditions, but no caveats about forecast range, data source, or units. It is consistent with annotations.
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?
Two sentences, with the core operation front-loaded and a single clarifying second sentence. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a simple read-only forecast tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers what the agent needs to select and call it. It names return categories despite no output schema, though it leaves minor details like units unspecified. Sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents location and dates. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond high-level output content, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific action and resource: getting weather forecasts for car travel destinations, and mentions road conditions that signal car-specific output. The verb-resource pair and mode qualifier distinguish it from the sibling weather tools.
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?
Description clearly situates the tool for car travel planning, implying use when the travel mode is by car. It does not explicitly name alternative bus/flight/hotel weather tools, but the car qualifier provides sufficient context. No misleading usage information.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct combination of travel vertical (flight, bus, car, hotel) and action (search, allocate, weather, room details). The weather forecast tools are separated by transport mode with different condition types, so an agent can reliably choose the right one.
Most tools follow a clear resource_action pattern such as bus_search, flight_allocate, and hotel_weather_forecast. Minor deviations are hotel_room_detail, which uses a noun phrase, and mcp_enuygun_ping, which breaks the pattern but is a standard connectivity check.
Twelve tools is a reasonable size for a multi-vertical travel booking server covering flights, buses, cars, hotels, and weather. Each vertical has search and weather coverage, with allocation and detail tools where most relevant.
Flight and car searches have matching allocation tools, but bus_search has no bus allocation/booking tool and hotel_search/hotel_room_detail have no hotel booking allocation tool. The core search and planning surface is present, but the booking lifecycle is inconsistent across verticals.
