Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-gateway

by io.github.Davedat-110105

Search Canadian Weather Alerts

weather-alerts_search_weather_alerts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Active ECCC weather alerts for one province or territory, newest first.

alert_type is watch, warning, or statement.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNo
limitNo
queryNo
cursorNo
fieldsNo
countryNoOnly CA is supported
alert_typeNo
active_onlyNo
risk_colourNo
snapshot_idNo
subdivisionYesOne province or territory, e.g. CA-ON. Required: alerts are held per province.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed18 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / alert_type / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "maxLength": 32,
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / alert_type / maxLength
      Added value: +32
    • addedInput schema / properties / alert_type / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / as_of / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "date-time",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / as_of / format
      Added value: +"date-time"
    • addedInput schema / properties / as_of / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / cursor / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / fields / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "enum": [
-        "id",
-        "province",
-        "code",
-        "type",
-        "name",
-        "short_name",
-        "area_name",
-        "status",
-        "risk_colour",
-        "confidence",
-        "impact",
-        "alert_text",
-        "published_at",
-        "valid_at",
-        "expires_at",
-        "event_ends_at",
-        "source_url"
-      ],
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "maxItems": 18,
-    "minItems": 1,
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / items
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "id",
+    "province",
+    "code",
+    "type",
+    "name",
+    "short_name",
+    "area_name",
+    "status",
+    "risk_colour",
+    "confidence",
+    "impact",
+    "alert_text",
+    "published_at",
+    "valid_at",
+    "expires_at",
+    "event_ends_at",
+    "source_url"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / maxItems
      Added value: +18
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / minItems
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / type
      Added value: +[
+  "array",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / risk_colour / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "maxLength": 64,
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / risk_colour / maxLength
      Added value: +64
    • addedInput schema / properties / risk_colour / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / snapshot_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / snapshot_id / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: results are active alerts only, ordered newest first, and restricted to one province/territory. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The core resource and scope are front-loaded, and the alert_type clarification earns its place. Excellent structure for a short description.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain optional parameters, pagination (limit/cursor), snapshot/as_of behavior, filtering options, or response structure. An agent would struggle to use anything beyond a simple subdivision query.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 18%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies alert_type (watch, warning, or statement) and leaves as_of, cursor, snapshot_id, limit, fields, active_only, risk_colour, and query without added meaning. This is insufficient for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description identifies the resource (ECCC weather alerts) and the scope (one province or territory) with ordering (newest first), making clear what the tool returns. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'search' or 'list' and does not contrast with the sibling get_weather_alert, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage: when you want active alerts for a single province/territory. It does not state when to prefer this over alternatives like weather-alerts_get_weather_alert or weather-alerts_list_weather_alert_types, nor does it provide exclusions. Guidance is contextual but not explicit.

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

All mcp-gateway 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources