get_oak_creek_levelsReturns current Oak Creek stream level and discharge at the Sedona USGS gauge. Useful for creek crossing safety, swimming holes, and recreation planning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| station | Yes | ||
| updated | Yes | ||
| station_id | Yes | ||
| level_label | Yes | ||
| discharge_cfs | No | ||
| gage_height_ft | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds context about data usage (safety, recreation) but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile, description provides marginal added value.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by practical use cases.
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?
Zero-parameter tool with output schema and rich annotations. Description adds usage context that aids selection and invocation, making it complete for its simplicity.
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 zero parameters and 100% coverage. Description correctly omits parameter details since none exist. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 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?
Tool name, title, and description clearly state it returns Oak Creek stream level and discharge from the Sedona USGS gauge. The description also provides specific usage context (creek crossing safety, swimming holes, recreation planning), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_weather or get_hiking_trails.
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 implies usage for outdoor recreation planning near Oak Creek, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. Since no sibling tool serves a similar water-level purpose, the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.
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.