get_snowpackFind nearby USDA NRCS SNOTEL stations and return snow-water equivalent, snow depth, water-year precipitation, temperature, distance, daily observation date and percent-of-median context. Costs $0.002; coverage is mountainous western U.S. and Alaska.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | ||
| lon | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| place | No | Place/address alternative to lat/lon. | |
| radius_km | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so meaningfully: a per-call cost of $0.002, a stated coverage boundary, and the exact data fields returned, including the percent-of-median normalization context.
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 dense, front-loaded sentences: the first states what is found and returned, the second carries cost and coverage constraints. No filler, though the long field enumeration is slightly list-like.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the return fields (SWE, snow depth, precipitation, temperature, distance, observation date, percent-of-median). Cost and geographic coverage round out what an agent needs. The remaining gap is parameter semantics, which the schema only partially covers.
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 only 20% — just 'place' is documented, while lat, lon, limit, and radius_km carry no description. The description adds no parameter guidance at all (no mention of lat/lon vs. place precedence, no radius behavior), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap even though the schema at least supplies ranges and defaults.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (find nearby USDA NRCS SNOTEL stations) and enumerates the returned measurements, which distinguishes it clearly from sibling geospatial tools like get_radon_potential, find_superfund_sites, and geocode_address.
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 decision-relevant context — a $0.002 cost and a geographic coverage restriction to the mountainous western U.S. and Alaska — which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is applicable. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer (e.g., geocode_address to resolve a place first).
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.