Agent Weather

RRULE next occurrences (paid: 0.001 RLUSD / 0.001 USDC on Base / 0.001 RLUSD on Base via x402)

rrule_next

Read-only

Paid: 0.001 RLUSD per call via x402 on XRPL mainnet (xrpl:0), or 0.001 USDC on Base (eip155:8453). Pay per call, solves one question: What are the next occurrences of this RFC 5545 recurrence rule? Next N (max 50) UTC occurrences of an RFC 5545 RRULE from a UTC DTSTART, computed locally for a documented subset (FREQ DAILY/WEEKLY/MONTHLY/YEARLY, INTERVAL, COUNT, UNTIL, BYMONTH, BYMONTHDAY, BYDAY, BYHOUR, BYMINUTE, BYSECOND, BYSETPOS, WKST). Unsupported parts return an error, not a guess. UTC only; no time-zone handling. Without payment this returns isError with the x402 PaymentRequired object (fresh invoiceId); retry with the signed payload in _meta["x402/payment"] or the payment_signature argument. Unpaid calls cost nothing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "rrule": "<rrule>",
      "dtstart": "<dtstart>"
    },
    "name": "rrule_next"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`n`	No	1-50 (default 5)
`after`	No	UTC instant to start after (default: now)
`rrule`	Yes	RRULE text, e.g. FREQ=WEEKLY;BYDAY=MO,WE
`dtstart`	Yes	UTC start, e.g. 2026-01-05T09:00:00Z
`payment_signature`	No	Optional. Base64 x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE value (signed RLUSD or USDC PaymentPayload) for hosts that cannot set _meta["x402/payment"]. Omit on the first call to receive the payment requirements.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, open-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds a lot: per-call pricing on two rails, the exact failure shape (isError with a fresh x402 PaymentRequired object/invoiceId), and the retry mechanism via _meta["x402/payment"] or payment_signature. The 'unsupported parts return an error, not a guess' and 'UTC only' constraints are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs and cannot get from the schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Dense but front-loaded: the pricing line leads, then the one-question framing, then the subset and the payment mechanics. Slight redundancy with the title and a somewhat run-on middle sentence keep it from a 5, but no sentence is filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries return-value disclosure and does so for the failure path (PaymentRequired object, invoiceId) and implies the success path is the next N occurrences. It stops short of stating the success payload shape, which for a timestamp-list tool is a minor but real omission.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: the 50-item ceiling on n, the UTC framing of after and dtstart, and the list of RRULE components (FREQ, INTERVAL, COUNT, UNTIL, BY*, WKST) that the parser actually honors. That last point is semantics the schema does not convey.

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 names a specific computation (next N UTC occurrences of an RFC 5545 RRULE from a UTC DTSTART) and frames it as answering exactly one question, which separates it from cron_next and from the payment/blockchain siblings. The supported-subset enumeration makes the scope unmistakable.

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?

It says clearly when the tool applies (RRULE text plus UTC DTSTART, UTC only, no time-zone handling) and what happens when a rule falls outside the documented subset: an error rather than a guess. It also spells out the first-call/retry payment sequence. The only gap is that it does not explicitly route to a sibling for timezone-aware or cron-style cases.

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

All Agent Weather tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?