Skip to main content
Glama

InfraNode

by dev.infranode

Weather

weather
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get current weather observations for a German city.

Sourced from the Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD): temperature, wind, precipitation and related fields. Read-only, current conditions only (not a forecast). For warnings use get_city_resource(slug, resource='weather-warnings'). For a broader question about the city (not just weather) use get_city_overview instead, which already includes a live weather highlight.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesCity identifier, e.g. 'berlin' or 'hamburg'. Resolved leniently: the German name with or without umlauts, any casing, a common English exonym or short form also works (München/munich/munchen -> muenchen, cologne -> koeln, frankfurt -> frankfurt-am-main). An unknown name returns 404 with a 'Meintest du ...?' suggestion. list_cities gives the canonical slugs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
metaYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide strong behavioral cues: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by confirming it's read-only and specifying 'current conditions only (not a forecast)', but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, response size, or any edge cases beyond what annotations imply. With such comprehensive annotations, the description's added behavioral context is moderate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact (three sentences), front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, and uses clear, direct language. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: defining the tool, clarifying scope, and providing usage guidance with alternatives. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only one required parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (context signal), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, data source, scope, and alternatives. It is fully adequate for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, meaning the `slug` parameter is well-documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces this with concrete examples and resolves leniency details (umlauts, English exonyms), which adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema's basic description. The extra context about error handling (404 with suggestion) further enriches parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets current weather observations for a German city, specifies the data source (Deutscher Wetterdienst) and the fields (temperature, wind, precipitation). It distinguishes this from a forecast tool, and the verb 'Get' combined with 'current weather observations' precisely describes the output.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (for current weather) and provides concrete alternatives: for weather warnings use get_city_resource, for a broader city overview use get_city_overview. This clearly guides the agent away from misuse, especially given the sibling tools listed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All InfraNode toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between 'get_city_resource' and specific resource accessors like 'weather', 'air_quality', 'transit_departures', 'station_board_arrivals', and 'station_board_departures'. The descriptions do clarify that some specific tools exist for convenience or source-specific details, but the boundary isn't always sharp. Also, 'compare' could overlap with using 'get_city_resource' repeatedly. An agent might hesitate between using the generic resource accessor and the named tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is mostly consistent: verbs like 'get', 'list', 'compare', and 'pois' (abbreviation) are used. The pattern is generally 'verb_noun' (e.g., 'get_city', 'list_cities', 'station_board_arrivals'). Minor deviations include 'pois' being an acronym rather than a full verb phrase, and 'air_quality' vs 'weather' implying a noun rather than an action. But overall it's predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is a well-scoped count for a city data platform. The function set covers discovery (list_cities, sources), overview (get_city_overview), base data (get_city), specific data types (weather, air_quality, transit_departures, station_board_*, pois), a generic accessor (get_city_resource), and a comparison tool (compare). Each tool feels necessary and the set is not overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is quite comprehensive for a read-only city information server. It provides discovery (list_cities, get_city_overview), base data, and access to 81 data types via get_city_resource. The named tools cover the most common queries (weather, air quality, transit). A minor gap is the lack of a tool to aggregate or search across cities (though 'compare' helps). Editing or write operations are not expected here, but for read-only, it's nearly complete.

Resources