get_weatherDaily weather forecast at the station coordinate (DWD data via Bright Sky).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stationId | Yes | Namespaced station id, e.g. "pegelonline:<uuid>" or "lhp:BY_10026301" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| daily | Yes | ||
| available | Yes | False when the forecast provider is unreachable | |
| stationId | Yes | ||
| attribution | Yes | ||
| stationName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about daily granularity and the underlying data source (DWD via Bright Sky), but it does not disclose rate limits, caching, freshness, or other operational behavior 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—daily granularity, station coordinate scope, and data source—earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, location basis, and data origin. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit sibling routing, which could matter when get_forecast is also present.
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 100%, and the single stationId parameter already includes format examples in the schema. The description implies that the station id resolves to a coordinate used for the forecast, which adds a little meaning, but it provides no additional syntax, constraints, or edge-case handling beyond the schema.
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 states a specific resource (daily weather forecast), scope (at the station coordinate), and data source (DWD data via Bright Sky). It is clear enough to distinguish from water-level siblings like get_readings or get_flood_situation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from get_forecast, so it falls short of a 5.
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 says what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the six sibling tools. There is no indication of when to prefer get_weather over get_forecast or other forecast/observation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.