weather_compareRank up to 5 locations by comfort outlook (ideal > mild > poor > severe). Useful for trip planning, expansion site comparison, event location selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| units | No | imperial | |
| coords | No | Semicolon-separated lat,lon pairs (max 5). e.g. 40.7,-74.0;25.7,-80.2 | |
| zip_codes | No | Comma-separated US ZIPs (max 5). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals the maximum 5-location limit, the comparison semantics, and the comfort outlook classification (ideal > mild > poor > severe). This adds meaningful behavioral context and aligns with 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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the core capability and ranking scale, the second gives relevant use cases. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.
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?
The description covers the core behavior and implied ranking output, but it does not clarify whether coords and zip_codes are mutually exclusive, what the return structure looks like, or what happens when no inputs are supplied. Since there is no output schema and no required parameters, these gaps matter.
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 schema already documents coords and zip_codes formats and provides the units enum with default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and at 67% schema description coverage, the description does not need to fully compensate but also provides no enhancement.
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?
Description states a specific operation: 'Rank up to 5 locations by comfort outlook' with an explicit ordinal scale. It clearly distinguishes this tool from raw weather retrieval siblings like weather_current or weather_forecast by focusing on comparison and ranking.
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?
Concrete use cases are given: 'trip planning, expansion site comparison, event location selection.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Multiple tools have genuinely blurry boundaries: company_change vs company_changes differ only by singular/plural yet serve different purposes, company_domain vs company_classify vs company_lookup_auto all accept a domain, geo_zip_lookup vs geo_enrich vs geo_zip_batch all return ZIP profiles, and email_validate subsumes much of email_disposable and email_free_provider. The domain prefixes help narrow search space, but within many domains an agent cannot reliably predict which tool is the right one.
All 129 tools uniformly follow a snake_case [domain]_[topic] convention (company_, fx_, geo_, dns_, weather_, tax_), which is highly predictable and consistent. Minor deviations include the confusing company_change/company_changes pair, and inconsistent suffix usage (_batch appears on address_validate_batch, company_domains_batch, geo_zip_batch but not on equivalent lookup tools elsewhere).
129 tools far exceeds the 50+ extreem-mismatch threshold, bundling roughly 28 unrelated data domains (weather, fx, tax, ccompany, dns, jobs, flight, email, phone, tax...) into a single MCP surface. Even focusing on one domain forces the agent to load an enormous unrelated tool list; this should be split into many smaller domain-specific servers.
Per-domain coverage is impressively thorough: weather spans current/forecast/hourly/historical/normals/marine/route/air-quality, fx covers rates/convert/historical/volatility/correlation/strenth, and company includes lookup/enrichment/networks/timeline/peer-comparison plus six buyer-tuned signals with profile-introspection tools. Minor gaps like flight being historical-only and smtp probes skipping major email providers are documented scope decisions rather than dead ends.