Get weather forecast for flight destinations and travel dates. Provides detailed weather predictions including temperature, precipitation, visibility, and wind conditions to help plan air travel safely.
| 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 that this is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing the returned data categories (temperature, precipitation, visibility, wind), which is not present in the annotations or schema. No contradiction; it could add units or date-range behavior but is not misleading.
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 tight, front-loaded sentences. The first states the action and scope; the second enriches with concrete output details. No filler, no repetition of schema information, and every sentence contributes to an agent's understanding.
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 three-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient: it explains the purpose, the planning context, and the kind of data returned. Minor gaps like units, forecast granularity, or date-range behavior are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the sibling-tool pattern.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (location, start_date, end_date) are already documented. The description adds conceptual context linking 'flight destinations' to location and 'travel dates' to start/end dates, but it does not provide any format or constraint details beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Get weather forecast') and a clear resource ('flight destinations and travel dates'), and the flight scope distinguishes it from the sibling weather tools (bus_weather_forecast, car_weather_forecast, hotel_weather_forecast). It also names the key weather elements returned, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 gives clear context—'for flight destinations and travel dates' and 'help plan air travel safely'—making it obvious when to choose this over the ground-transport weather siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of explicit routing guidance.
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.
