OhMyWind
Server Details
Sailing passage planner for any coast, with high-precision tides on the French Atlantic.
- Status
- Healthy
- Uptime
- 99.4% over 66 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
- Repository
- qdonnars/ohmywind
- GitHub Stars
- 11
- Server Listing
- OhMyWind
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a clearly distinct purpose: point forecast (get_marine_forecast), point tidal stream (get_tidal_stream), route planning (plan_passage), boat lookup (list_boat_archetypes), and methodology (read_me). The overlapping tide/current content in the two point tools is explicitly disambiguated by routing guidance ('outside every atlas... use get_marine_forecast'), and plan_passage carries its own tool-routing decision tree. No realistic misselection risk remains.
All names are snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun (get_marine_forecast, get_tidal_stream, list_boat_archetypes, plan_passage). The only deviation is read_me, which breaks the verb_noun pattern with a verb_pronoun form, but it remains readable and conventional for a docs tool.
Five tools is well-scoped for a marine weather and passage-planning server; each tool owns a distinct capability and none is redundant. The heavy lifting (plan_passage) is consolidated into a single configurable tool rather than fragmented into many thin ones.
The surface covers the full sailing workflow: point conditions, tidal streams, boat selection, route planning with comparison modes, and methodology — a coherent lifecycle rather than dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no geocoding/place-name lookup (lat/lon must be supplied) and no tool to enumerate available models, but these are workable around.
Available Tools
5 toolsget_marine_forecastRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Wind, sea, and where it matters current and tide, at one point.
For the questions about a place rather than a passage: how hard it
blows at Groix this afternoon, when the thermal breeze fills in, when
the mistral eases, whether the models agree, what the swell does at a
harbour entrance tonight.
Args:
lat: latitude in degrees.
lon: longitude in degrees.
start: ISO-8601 datetime with the user's UTC offset (e.g.
"2026-05-01T08:00:00+02:00"). Every time in the answer comes
back in that offset.
end: ISO-8601 datetime, timezone-aware.
models: optional list of model names. Leave it unset for the
automatic choice: AROME (1.3 km) wherever it reaches the
window, and the next model that reaches its end when the
window runs past two days. Name several models (``["arome",
"icon_eu", "ecmwf", "gfs"]``) only when the user asks whether
the models agree: each one costs a request.
Returns hourly ``wind`` per model (speed, direction it comes from,
gusts, in knots), ``sea`` (wave height, period, direction), and, only
where they are material, ``current`` (speed in knots, direction it
flows to, from a tidal atlas where one covers the point) and ``tide``
(height around mean sea level: read the range and the times of high
and low water from it, not a depth over chart datum). Each series is
a table: ``columns`` names the fields once, each of ``rows`` is one
hour. Also ``openwind_url``, the OhMyWind map centred on the point.
Answer in a sentence first (the user is often in a car or at the bar),
then give the few numbers that back it, as a short table or a small
chart if your interface draws one. No widget comes with this tool:
the presentation is yours. Offer ``openwind_url`` as "voir sur la
carte". This is a forecast: never present it as a measurement of
what is blowing right now.
Pass a point at sea. Open-Meteo Marine answers from the nearest sea
cell: a few kilometres inland the ``sea`` values are the open coast's
(Guipavas, inland of Brest, gets the waves of the rade), further
inland they come back null, the ``sea`` array present and empty of
information rather than absent. Wind is always the point's own.
Note: the first request after inactivity may incur ~5s of cold-start.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| models | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
get_tidal_streamARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
The tidal stream and the tide at one point, from the tidal atlases alone.
For the questions about a pass or a harbour entrance: when to be at
the Raz de Sein to carry the stream, when the Fromveur turns, how
hard it runs at Port-Navalo tomorrow, when high water is at Chausey.
Costs no weather request: harmonic predictions from the atlases this
server ships (SHOM, MARC and others), the same ones ``plan_passage``
applies leg by leg.
Args:
lat: latitude in degrees, at sea, in the pass itself.
lon: longitude in degrees.
start: ISO-8601 datetime with the user's UTC offset; every time
in the answer comes back in that offset.
end: ISO-8601 datetime, timezone-aware. At most 400 steps.
heading_deg: optional course through the point (true degrees,
the direction you head to). With it, each step gets
``along_kn`` (positive: the stream carries you, negative: it
stems you) and the answer lists the ``favourable`` and
``adverse`` windows.
step_minutes: 5 to 180, default 30.
Returns ``covered``, ``source``, ``confidence``, ``points`` (a table:
``columns`` time, ``speed_kn``, ``direction_to_deg`` it flows to,
``along_kn``, ``height_m`` around mean sea level; one row per step),
``slack`` (the moments the stream nearly
stops), ``high_waters`` / ``low_waters``, ``favourable`` /
``adverse`` when a heading is given, ``tide_coefficient`` (French
national coefficient, Brest, on French atlases), a ``warning`` when
the atlas does not resolve the pass, and ``openwind_url``.
Outside every atlas (most of the Mediterranean, the open sea)
``covered`` is false: say so, and use ``get_marine_forecast``, which
returns the global model's current where it matters.
Astronomical tide only: no surge, no wind-driven current. The windows
are facts about the stream, not a recommendation: weigh them against
the wind (``get_marine_forecast``) and the whole passage
(``plan_passage``). Present the answer yourself, the time to be at the
pass in one sentence and the few times that back it: no widget comes
with this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| heading_deg | No | ||
| step_minutes | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: no weather request is consumed, predictions are astronomical only (no surge, no wind-driven current), a warning appears when the atlas fails to resolve the pass, and no widget is returned so the agent must present the answer itself. These are genuine behavioral disclosures, not restatements.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then cleanly split into Args and Returns sections. It is long, and the Returns paragraph partly mirrors what the output schema likely already carries, so it is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary, but every line is informative and 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 six-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers the coverage/fallback rule, the astronomical-only limitation, the presentation responsibility, and the effect of every optional parameter. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: lat/lon semantics ('at sea, in the pass itself'), start as ISO-8601 with the user's UTC offset governing all returned times, end's 400-step cap, heading_deg's effect on along_kn and favourable/adverse windows, and step_minutes' 5-180 range with default 30. Each parameter gains meaning absent from 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?
States a specific verb and resource: retrieves the tidal stream and tide at one point, sourced solely from the tidal atlases the server ships. It immediately distinguishes itself from get_marine_forecast (weather model) and plan_passage (whole passage), so an agent can identify the tool without opening any schema.
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?
Gives concrete use cases (when to be at the Raz de Sein, when the Fromveur turns, high water at Chausey) and explicit routing: when the point is outside every atlas, say so and use get_marine_forecast; for the whole passage it points to plan_passage. Both the when-to-use and the alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_boat_archetypesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List the boat archetypes with descriptive metadata.
The LLM (or user) maps a commercial model (e.g. "Sun Odyssey 32") to one
of these archetypes from the metadata — there is no server-side mapping.
``voile_aviron_16ft`` is for open sail-and-oar dinghies only (no cabin,
rowed as well as sailed); a small cabin cruiser maps to ``cruiser_20ft``.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — that no server-side mapping exists and the caller must do the matching — which the annotations cannot convey.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the remaining sentences earn their place by preempting a likely mis-assumption (that the server resolves model names). Slightly more detail than a bare listing tool strictly requires, but not padding.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the domain disambiguation (sail-and-oar dinghy vs. small cabin cruiser) that an agent would otherwise get wrong, leaving little of consequence unstated.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; baseline 4 applies. No parameter text is needed or missing.
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 (List) and resource (boat archetypes) plus the key qualifier that each entry carries descriptive metadata. It also clarifies what an 'archetype' means in this domain, so an agent can distinguish it from the forecasting/passage siblings without opening a schema.
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?
Explains the intended workflow: call this, then have the LLM/user map a commercial model (e.g. "Sun Odyssey 32") to an archetype, since there is no server-side mapping. That is clear usage context, though it does not name when NOT to call it or point to a specific alternative among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
plan_passageRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Plan an A→B passage. Compare departure windows by default; pin a single departure only when the user gives an explicit time.
## Tool routing: read this first
Before calling, classify the user's question:
1. **Pure weather lookup at a point** ("y aura-t-il du vent à Cassis
samedi à 14h ?", "quelles vagues dimanche au cap Sicié ?"): call
``get_marine_forecast`` and answer in text. Do NOT call
``plan_passage``: there's no route to plan.
2. **Trajet question with a flexible date** ("Marseille → Porquerolles
ce week-end", "demain ou après-demain", "dans les prochains jours"):
call ``plan_passage`` in **compare-windows mode**, passing
``latest_departure`` (e.g. earliest+48h) and ``sweep_interval_hours``
(3 or 6 typically) so the user sees several departure scenarios
side-by-side. Then pick 2-3 good ones and let the user choose.
This is the **default** for trajet planning: same API cost as a
single passage thanks to cache prewarm, much more value.
3. **Trajet with a precise hour pinned by the user** ("je pars demain
à 8h", "départ Saturday 9am"): call ``plan_passage`` in single
mode (no ``latest_departure``). Used for the final "show me the
detailed plan for THIS departure" view, often after step 2.
4. **Two ways to go** ("nord ou sud du Fromveur pour Ouessant ?",
"par l'intérieur ou l'extérieur des Glénan ?", "Ré ou Aix
demain ?"): one ``plan_passage`` call, the first route in
``waypoints`` and the others in ``alternatives`` (two at most),
each with a short ``label`` saying how it goes ("Par le nord du
Fromveur"). Every route is computed for the same departures, so
the widget compares them cell by cell. Do not make one call per
route.
5. **When to be at a pass** ("à quelle heure au Raz de Sein ?",
"quand renverse le courant au Fromveur ?"): ``get_tidal_stream``
at the pass, with the course you will steer, and ``plan_passage``
comparing departures, both in the same turn; then pick the
departure that brings you there in the favourable window.
6. **Methodology question** ("comment c'est calculé ?",
"quelle efficacité par défaut ?"): call ``read_me``.
Rule of thumb: if the user does NOT give an exact hour, prefer
compare-windows. The widget renders one of the windows by default
and the chat lets the user pick another.
## Waypoints must stay in the water
This server runs a coarse land check before anything else: a leg
that runs a couple of kilometres over land, or a waypoint inland, gets
the call refused before any forecast request, with the leg and the
place named. Redraw it and call again; never show the user a route
over land. The shoreline is coarse (about 1 km, the coast widened by
2 km so harbours stay at sea, and any water a fine current atlas
resolves counts as sea): a spit narrower than about 4 km, or a
leg that shaves a headland, passes the check and is timed as drawn,
too short, too fast, and scored on conditions the boat would never
meet.
So the route is still yours to draw. Between every consecutive pair of
waypoints the straight line must stay at sea. Add intermediate
waypoints to round anything the direct line would cut: headlands,
peninsulas, islands, shoals.
- Toulon to Saint-Tropez: the direct line crosses the Massif des
Maures. Pass south of the presqu'île de Giens, then round cap Bénat
and cap Camarat before turning north into the gulf.
- Brest to Douarnenez: the direct line crosses the presqu'île de
Crozon. Exit the goulet, round the cap de la Chèvre, then head east
into the bay.
Keep about 1 NM of clearance off headlands, more with onshore wind or
swell, and do not shave the inside of islands. Extra waypoints are
close to free: the cap is 50, and sampling cost follows
``segment_length_nm`` and total distance, not the waypoint count. When
in doubt, add the waypoint.
A waypoint that lands ashore has a second effect. Open-Meteo returns
no sea state over land, so those samples carry a null wave height and
the complexity score silently falls back to wind only, dropping the
axis that would have flagged a rough passage.
Name the capes you routed around in your reply ("passage au large du
cap Bénat"), so the user can correct a leg you drew wrong.
## Returned payload
Every time comes back in the UTC offset of ``departure``: send the
user's own (``+02:00`` for France in summer) and read the times as
their clock.
Single mode:
- ``passage``: per-segment timing report (distance_nm, duration_h,
model used, segments[] with TWS/TWA/boat_speed/Hs, warnings).
- ``complexity``: 1-5 difficulty score with wind/sea breakdown and a
human-readable rationale.
- ``openwind_url``: deep-link to ohmywind.fr/plan that renders the
same passage in the standalone web app.
- ``waypoints``: the route as you sent it, which the widget draws on
a map.
- ``route_label`` and ``alternatives[]``, only when you passed
alternatives: each alternative has its ``label``, ``waypoints``,
``passage``, ``complexity`` and ``openwind_url``.
- ``disclaimer``: usage warning to relay (see below).
Compare-windows mode (``latest_departure`` set):
- ``mode``: ``"multi_window"``.
- ``sweep``: ``earliest`` / ``latest`` / ``interval_hours`` /
``window_count``.
- ``windows[]``: each entry has ``departure``, its ``weekday``,
``arrival``, ``duration_h``, ``distance_nm``, ``complexity`` (level
+ label + rationale), ``conditions_summary`` (tws_min/max,
predominant sail angle, hs_min/max), ``warnings`` (the difficulty
first), ``openwind_url``.
- ``meta_warnings``: notes about the whole sweep or the route ("3
fenêtres ignorées …", a long route sampled more sparsely).
- ``waypoints``: the route as you sent it, once for all windows.
- ``route_label`` and ``alternatives[]``, only when you passed
alternatives: each alternative has its ``label``, ``waypoints``
and its own ``windows[]``, same departures.
- ``disclaimer``: usage warning to relay (see below).
## ALWAYS relay the disclaimer
This tool returns an ETA and a difficulty score the user may act on to
decide whether to put to sea. Carry the ``disclaimer`` field into your
reply, once, in the user's language, phrased naturally rather than
quoted verbatim. Put it after the numbers, not before: it qualifies
them, it does not replace them. Do not drop it because the plan looks
easy, and do not repeat it on every follow-up turn about the same
passage.
## How it renders
On hosts that support MCP Apps (Claude, Claude Desktop, ChatGPT, VS
Code Copilot, Goose, Postman, MCPJam), the response is automatically
accompanied by an interactive widget served via the
``ui://openwind/plan-passage`` resource declared on this tool's
``_meta``. In compare-windows mode it lists the departures; the one
the user selects (the earliest at first) drives a map of the route
you drew, coloured by its wind, and its per-leg detail. In single
mode it shows the figures, the map and the per-leg detail. The user
sees your waypoints on that map, one more reason to keep every leg at
sea.
On hosts without MCP Apps support (Cursor, Le Chat, terminal), present
a short text summary of the result (route, ETA, complexity, warnings)
and offer ``openwind_url`` as the link to adjust the route or the
departure on the site.
## Offer the openwind_url(s) in your text reply
Even when the widget renders inline, the link is useful spelled out:
it opens this very plan in the web app, where the user can drag the
route, move the departure or change the boat, and share or bookmark
it.
- **Single mode**: end your reply with a Markdown link built from the
``openwind_url`` field, e.g. ``[Modifier le tracé ou le départ →](<openwind_url>)``.
Always use that value verbatim, never a URL you compose yourself: it
points at the environment this server is configured for, which is not
always the production site.
- **Compare-windows mode**: list 2-4 of the most relevant windows
and give each its own link, e.g.
``- Sam 2 mai 09h · 11h12 · ⚡2/5 · [voir →](url)``.
The widget lets the user inspect any window, but it does not
rank them: your picks and their links still belong in the reply.
Phrase the link with intent, as what the user can do there
("modifier le tracé ou le départ", "ajuster ce départ dans l'app"),
not just a bare URL: the user should know what clicking does.
## Args
waypoints: list of ``{"lat": ..., "lon": ...}`` dicts, 2 to 50.
Used exactly as drawn. Read "Waypoints must stay in the
water" above before building it.
departure: ISO-8601 datetime, timezone-aware.
archetype: the boat. Pick it yourself from what the user sails,
among these (``list_boat_archetypes`` returns the same list):
- ``cruiser_20ft``: 20 ft (6 m) monohull, slow (Beneteau First 210, Catalina 22, Jeanneau Tonic 23)
- ``cruiser_25ft``: 25 ft (8 m) monohull, slow (Beneteau First 25, Catalina 25, Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 24)
- ``cruiser_30ft``: 30 ft (9 m) monohull, slow (Sun Odyssey 32, Bavaria 31, Beneteau Oceanis 31)
- ``cruiser_40ft``: 40 ft (12 m) monohull, average (Sun Odyssey 410, Bavaria 41 Cruiser, Hanse 418)
- ``cruiser_50ft``: 50 ft (15 m) monohull, fast (Sun Odyssey 519, Bavaria C50, Hanse 508)
- ``catamaran_40ft``: 40 ft (12 m) catamaran, fast-reach (Lagoon 40, Bali 4.1, Fountaine Pajot Lucia 40)
- ``racer_cruiser``: 40 ft (12 m) monohull, very-fast (J/122, Pogo 12.50, Solaris 40)
- ``voile_aviron_16ft``: 16 ft (5 m) monohull, slow (Vivier Ilur, Vivier Aven, Vivier Aber)
``voile_aviron_16ft`` is an open sail-and-oar dinghy only; a small cabin cruiser is ``cruiser_20ft``.
efficiency: multiplier on polar speed. ``0.85`` racing, ``0.75``
cruising (default), ``0.65`` loaded family cruising, ``0.55``
heavy seas / fouled hull.
segment_length_nm: target sub-segment length. Default 10 nm
balances precision vs Open-Meteo budget; drop to 5 for tight
coastal work, raise to 20 for long offshore legs.
model: wind model. Default ``"auto"`` tries AROME (≤48 h) →
ICON-EU (≤5 d) → ECMWF IFS 0.25° (≤10 d) → GFS (≤16 d).
Pass ``arome``, ``icon_eu``, ``ecmwf`` or ``gfs`` to bypass.
max_hs_m: optional max significant wave height (meters) over the
route: pass it if you have a sea-state estimate from
``get_marine_forecast`` and want it factored into the score.
Defaults to wind-only scoring.
motor_threshold_kn: optional sail-speed floor (knots) under which
the simulator switches to engine power. Must be paired with
``motor_speed_kn`` (either alone is ignored). Typical value
2 kn: sailors fire up the engine rather than crawl in light
wind. Leave unset for 100% sail. Range (0, 10].
motor_speed_kn: optional speed under engine (knots) applied to
segments where the sail estimate falls under
``motor_threshold_kn``. Typical 5-6 kn for a cruising boat.
Range (0, 12].
min_upwind_twa_deg: optional minimum sailable TWA (degrees)
overriding the archetype's own value (42-50 deg depending on
the boat). Pass it when you know the boat points better or
worse than the archetype suggests. Range [25, 70].
route_label: optional short name for the main route, shown in
the widget when you pass alternatives ("Par le nord").
alternatives: optional other routes for the same trip, at most
two: ``[{"label": "Par le sud", "waypoints": [...]}, ...]``.
Same departures, same boat, same rules for the waypoints
(stay at sea). Each route costs its own forecast requests:
pass them only when the user weighs two ways to go.
inland_waterway: true only when the user sails up a river or a
canal the coarse shoreline counts as land (the Seine to
Rouen, the Loire to Nantes): it turns the land check off for
this call. Never set it to get past a refusal at sea; redraw
the route instead.
## Compare-windows mode (latest_departure set)
When ``latest_departure`` is provided, the tool switches into a
window-comparison call: it walks departure times from ``departure``
up to ``latest_departure`` every ``sweep_interval_hours`` (default
1 h). Returns ``{"mode": "multi_window", "sweep": {...}, "windows":
[...]}`` instead of the single-passage payload. Each window contains
``departure``, ``arrival``, ``duration_h``, ``distance_nm``,
``complexity``, ``conditions_summary``, ``warnings``, and its own
``openwind_url``.
``target_eta``: optional ISO-8601 datetime. When set, only windows that
arrive within ±2 h of the target are returned. If none match, all
windows are returned with a ``meta_warnings`` note.
## Failure modes
Raises ``ForecastHorizonError`` if the chosen model's horizon doesn't
cover the passage and ``model != "auto"``. The error message names the
failing model and suggests longer-range alternatives.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | auto | |
| max_hs_m | No | ||
| archetype | Yes | ||
| departure | Yes | ||
| waypoints | Yes | ||
| efficiency | No | ||
| target_eta | No | ||
| route_label | No | ||
| alternatives | No | ||
| motor_speed_kn | No | ||
| inland_waterway | No | ||
| latest_departure | No | ||
| segment_length_nm | No | ||
| min_upwind_twa_deg | No | ||
| motor_threshold_kn | No | ||
| sweep_interval_hours | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
read_meRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return OhMyWind's calculation methodology as Markdown.
Call this when the user asks how passage timing, complexity, or
boat speed are computed (e.g. "comment c'est calculé ?",
"what assumptions does the model use?", "is tacking modelled?").
The returned text covers: polar lookup, default efficiency 0.75,
VMG / tacking correction, wave derate, single-pass timing,
compare-windows mode semantics, regional defaults, wind against
current, short-period chop, what is intentionally not modelled, and
the data attributions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
- Added
get_tidal_stream - Changed
plan_passage3 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / alternativesAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": true, + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null, + "title": "Alternatives" +} - added
Input schema / properties / inland_waterwayAdded value: +{ + "default": false, + "title": "Inland Waterway", + "type": "boolean" +} - added
Input schema / properties / route_labelAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null, + "title": "Route Label" +}
1 tool update
- Changed
plan_passage1 field changed- added
Input schema / properties / min_upwind_twa_degAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "number" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null, + "title": "Min Upwind Twa Deg" +}
4 tool updates
- First observed
get_marine_forecast - First observed
list_boat_archetypes - First observed
plan_passage - First observed
read_me
Related MCP Connectors
Tides, currents, marine forecasts and warnings for paddlers, anglers and small boats, 26 countries.
Marine and outdoor weather: multi-model forecasts, official bulletins, tides, anchorages.
Mediterranean marine, nautical, sailing: forecasts, tides, sea routes, anchorages, POIs for AI.
Personal sailing voyage log: trips, legs, ships, crew and GPX tracks with honest statistics.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceTurns your Garmin watch into a sailing analytics tool by combining GPS data from Garmin Connect with historical weather data, providing insights like speed, VMG, wind conditions, and interactive maps.2-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA fully MCP-compliant, open-source maritime data service that provides real-time vessel tracking, port information, route planning, and weather/tide data for maritime applications.15MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for wind forecasts, live measurements, wave forecasts, and tides, enabling kite and surf spot checks via AI assistants.55 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides real-time maritime weather data, tropical cyclone warnings, and route calculations for AI agents.MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.