Skip to main content
Glama

OhMyWind

by fr.ohmywind

read_me

Read-onlyIdempotent

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, Mediterranean simplifications
    (tides, currents), and what is intentionally NOT modelled in V1.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the output format (Markdown) and the specific methodology topics covered, which helps set agent expectations beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear usage guidance and a structured list of covered topics. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter input and presence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: when to call, what it returns, and what content to expect. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without further clarification.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return OhMyWind's calculation methodology as Markdown.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like plan_passage and get_marine_forecast, which serve different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Call this when the user asks how passage timing, complexity, or boat speed are computed' and provides concrete example queries. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops 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.

All OhMyWind 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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool owns a clearly distinct responsibility: point forecasts (get_marine_forecast), boat archetype metadata (list_boat_archetypes), route/window planning (plan_passage), and methodology documentation (read_me). The only plausible overlap between forecasting and passage planning is explicitly resolved by routing instructions inside plan_passage. An agent should rarely mis-select among them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All four names are lowercase snake_case with a verb-first structure: get_, list_, plan_, read_. While read_me is idiomatic rather than a resource noun, the verb-object pattern is consistent and predictable across the whole set.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a well-scoped size for a niche marine routing/wind server. Every tool earns its place in the workflow, and none are redundant or missing to the point of feeling thin.

Completeness4/5

The core user journey is covered: fetch conditions, select a boat archetype, plan a passage with departure-window comparison, and read the methodology. Minor gaps remain—no land/route validation tool and no explicit model catalog—but the descriptions document these limitations and let agents work around them.

Resources