get_nws_alertsReturns active National Weather Service alerts for the Sedona / Yavapai County area — watches, warnings, and advisories. Returns empty when conditions are clear.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alerts | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| updated | Yes | ||
| location | Yes | ||
| alert_count | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "alert_count": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "alerts": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "areas": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "effective": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "event": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "expires": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "headline": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "instruction": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "severity": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "urgency": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "event"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "location": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "updated": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "location",
+ "updated",
+ "alert_count",
+ "alerts",
+ "source"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that the result is empty when conditions are clear, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavior on empty results.
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 zero parameters, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the spatial scope and return semantics (empty when clear).
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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate since none exist.
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 active National Weather Service alerts for a specific area (Sedona/Yavapai County), specifies the types (watches, warnings, advisories), and indicates behavior when no alerts exist. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_emergency_alerts or get_weather.
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 for local weather alerts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_emergency_alerts or get_weather. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.
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.