weather-alerts_get_weather_alertOne alert by the id search_weather_alerts returned; alert is null when absent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | ||
| country | No | Only CA is supported | |
| alert_id | Yes | ||
| snapshot_id | No | ||
| subdivision | Yes | One province or territory, e.g. CA-ON. Required: alerts are held per province. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a read-only operation, and the description adds the important null-when-absent behavior. There are no side effects or hidden writes described.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose and null behavior. The wording is slightly awkward ('by the id search_weather_alerts returned') but it contains no unnecessary detail.
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 single-object lookup with no output schema, the description conveys the main success and not-found outcomes. Mentioning the alert object shape would improve completeness, but it is not essential for basic invocation.
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 schema description coverage is only 40%, and the tool description provides no additional parameter semantics. alert_id and subdivision are reasonably self-explanatory, but as_of and snapshot_id are not described at all.
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 clearly states that the tool returns one alert by ID and that the alert is null when absent. It distinguishes this from the related search tool by focusing on single-alert retrieval.
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 implies that the alert ID comes from search_weather_alerts and clarifies null behavior when the alert is missing. It does not explicitly say 'use this after search_weather_alerts', but the retrieval-by-ID intent is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a unique purpose, and the descriptions are detailed enough to clearly distinguish between search, list, get, and specific operations across domains. No two tools overlap in function.
Domain tools follow a consistent '<domain>_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, but gateway-level tools like 'call_tool', 'find_capability', 'inspect_tool', 'search_services', and 'status' lack the prefix, introducing a minor inconsistency. Overall still readable and predictable.
With 35 tools, the count exceeds the typical 3–15 range, but this is a gateway aggregating multiple distinct domains (holidays, laws, opendata, recalls, etc.), making the larger set justified. The count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.
Each domain offers a full set of operations: search, list, get, and domain-specific actions (like count_business_days or get_document_changes). Gateway meta-tools cover discovery, inspection, and invocation, leaving no obvious gaps.