get_fire_restrictionsReturns current fire restriction level and fire danger rating for the Sedona / Coconino National Forest area. Includes any active Stage 1 or Stage 2 restrictions and Sedona-area alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | Yes | ||
| stage | Yes | ||
| agency | Yes | ||
| danger | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| updated | Yes | ||
| sedona_alerts | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns restriction levels, danger rating, and active alerts. It does not contradict annotations and provides specificity beyond them.
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 a single, concise sentence (20 words) that front-loads the key information: what it returns and the location. Every word is necessary, no fluff.
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 the tool has no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is complete. It covers the returned data (restriction level, danger rating, alerts), the area, and the scope (Stage 1/2, Sedona-area). No additional context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter information. Per rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4.
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 the tool returns 'current fire restriction level and fire danger rating' for a specific area, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_wildfire_perimeters (which likely provides fire perimeters) and get_emergency_alerts (broader alerts). The verb 'returns' and the resource 'fire restrictions' are specific and unambiguous.
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 implies usage when needing fire restriction data for the Sedona/Coconino National Forest area, but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools like get_wildfire_perimeters or get_emergency_alerts could be referenced, but are not.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap in areas like listener management (get_listener_profile, get_or_create_listener, register_listener, update_listener_preference, log_listener_history) and alerts (get_emergency_alerts, get_nws_alerts, get_fire_restrictions, get_wildfire_perimeters). This can cause confusion for an agent selecting the appropriate tool.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but verbs are inconsistent: 'get_', 'search_', 'submit_', 'log_', 'update_', 'register_', 'get_or_create_'. The listener management tools have varying verbs, and there is a mix of specific and generic names. The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.
At 45 tools, the server is overloaded for its stated purpose as a radio station. It covers many unrelated domains (emergency alerts, hiking, chakras, etc.), which would be better split into separate, focused servers. The tool count feels excessive and unfocused.
While the radio-related tools (now playing, requests, schedule, listener management) cover core functionality, the inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., hiking trails, chakras, sports scores) dilutes the server's purpose. There are obvious gaps in radio-specific features (e.g., no tool for playlist management or DJ scheduling) but an overabundance of peripheral tools.