nws-weather-mcp-server
Server Details
Real-time US weather data via National Weather Service API. Forecasts, alerts, and observations.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- cyanheads/nws-weather-mcp-server
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: station discovery, forecast retrieval, observation fetching, alert type listing, and alert searching. The descriptions explicitly differentiate their functions, such as nws_find_stations for discovering station IDs versus nws_get_observations for actual measurements, eliminating any ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent 'nws_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case, such as nws_find_stations, nws_get_forecast, and nws_search_alerts. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand at a glance.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for weather data retrieval, covering key areas like forecasts, observations, alerts, and station discovery. Each tool serves a unique and necessary function without redundancy, making the count ideal for the domain.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for accessing NWS weather data, including forecasts, current observations, alerts, and supporting utilities like station lookup and alert type listing. A minor gap might be the lack of historical data retrieval or more granular alert management, but core workflows are fully supported.
Available Tools
5 toolsnws_find_stationsNws Find StationsARead-onlyInspect
Find weather observation stations near a location. Returns stations sorted by proximity with distance and bearing. Use to discover station IDs for nws_get_observations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max stations to return (1-50). | |
| latitude | Yes | Center latitude for proximity search. | |
| longitude | Yes | Center longitude for proximity search. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| stations | Yes | Nearby stations sorted by distance |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it specifies that stations are 'sorted by proximity with distance and bearing' and that it's for discovering station IDs. This provides useful operational details about sorting behavior and output purpose that aren't covered by annotations.
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?
Two sentences that are completely focused and efficient. The first sentence explains what the tool does and its output characteristics. The second sentence provides clear usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste.
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?
Given that annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true), schema fully documents parameters, and there's an output schema (so return values don't need description), the description provides exactly what's needed: clear purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral context about sorting and the relationship to the observations tool.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value regarding parameter meaning or usage.
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 the verb ('Find') and resource ('weather observation stations') with specific scope ('near a location'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning its purpose is to 'discover station IDs for nws_get_observations', which is different from forecast, observations, or alert tools.
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool ('to discover station IDs for nws_get_observations') and provides clear context about its purpose. It differentiates from the sibling 'nws_get_observations' by indicating this tool is for discovery while that one is for retrieving actual observations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
nws_get_forecastNws Get ForecastARead-onlyInspect
Get the weather forecast for a US location. Returns either named 12-hour periods (default) or hourly breakdowns. Internally resolves coordinates to the NWS grid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hourly | No | If true, returns hourly forecast (~156 periods) instead of 12-hour named periods (14 periods). Hourly includes dewpoint and relative humidity. | |
| latitude | Yes | Latitude in decimal degrees (e.g., 47.6062). Truncated to 4 decimal places. | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude in decimal degrees (e.g., -122.3321). Truncated to 4 decimal places. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| periods | Yes | Forecast periods |
| location | Yes | Resolved location metadata |
| generatedAt | Yes | When the forecast was generated (ISO 8601) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses the return format options (12-hour vs. hourly), mentions internal coordinate resolution to NWS grid, and hints at data volume differences (14 vs. ~156 periods). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format details and internal behavior. Every word adds value—no fluff or repetition—making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich schema (100% coverage), annotations (readOnlyHint), and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavior, and output options without needing to detail parameters or return values, which are handled elsewhere.
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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal param semantics beyond the schema—it mentions the hourly option's effect on return format but doesn't elaborate on latitude/longitude usage. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('weather forecast for a US location'), specifies the return format options ('12-hour periods' or 'hourly breakdowns'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on forecasts rather than stations, observations, or alerts. It's specific and immediately tells what the tool does.
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 usage context by mentioning 'US location' and 'NWS grid', but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like nws_get_observations for current weather or nws_search_alerts for warnings. It provides clear internal behavior ('resolves coordinates') but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
nws_get_observationsNws Get ObservationsARead-onlyInspect
Get current weather observations (actual measured conditions). Accepts coordinates (resolves nearest station automatically) or a station ID directly (e.g., "KSEA").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | No | Latitude for automatic station resolution. Use with longitude. Ignored if station_id is provided. | |
| longitude | No | Longitude for automatic station resolution. Use with latitude. Ignored if station_id is provided. | |
| station_id | No | Station identifier directly (e.g., "KSEA", "KORD"). Use nws_find_stations to discover station IDs. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| dewpoint | Yes | Dewpoint in Celsius |
| timeZone | Yes | Station time zone when known |
| windGust | Yes | Wind gust in km/h |
| heatIndex | Yes | Heat index in Celsius |
| stationId | Yes | Observation station ID |
| timestamp | Yes | Observation time (ISO 8601) |
| windChill | Yes | Wind chill in Celsius |
| windSpeed | Yes | Wind speed in km/h |
| visibility | Yes | Visibility in meters |
| cloudLayers | Yes | Cloud layer information |
| stationName | Yes | Station name |
| temperature | Yes | Temperature in Celsius |
| windDirection | Yes | Wind direction in degrees |
| textDescription | Yes | Conditions summary (e.g., "Mostly Cloudy") |
| relativeHumidity | Yes | Relative humidity (%) |
| barometricPressure | Yes | Barometric pressure in Pascals |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the automatic station resolution behavior ('resolves nearest station automatically') and clarifies parameter precedence ('Ignored if station_id is provided' is implied through schema descriptions, but the description reinforces this). However, it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.
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?
Two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and key parameters, the second provides usage guidance with a sibling reference. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral context without needing to explain return values or repeat schema details.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it provides an example station ID ('KSEA') and mentions automatic resolution, but these are already covered in schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current weather observations (actual measured conditions)', specifying it retrieves measured data rather than forecasts. It distinguishes from siblings like nws_get_forecast by focusing on observations, not predictions.
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?
It explicitly states when to use alternatives: 'Use nws_find_stations to discover station IDs' for the station_id parameter, and distinguishes from nws_get_forecast by specifying 'observations' vs. forecasts. It also explains the coordinate vs. station ID usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
nws_list_alert_typesNws List Alert TypesARead-onlyInspect
List all valid NWS alert event type names. Use to discover valid values for the event filter in nws_search_alerts, or to browse alert categories. No parameters required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of event types |
| eventTypes | Yes | Alert event type names sorted alphabetically |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool's purpose for discovery/browsing and its relationship to another tool. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety aspects. However, it doesn't detail behavioral traits like rate limits or response format, though output schema exists.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines and parameter info. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only, with output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter requirements adequately, and the output schema handles return values, so no gaps exist for this simple tool.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description compensates by explicitly stating 'No parameters required,' which adds clarity beyond the empty schema. No parameters to document, so it effectively addresses the lack of input needs.
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 the specific action ('List all valid NWS alert event type names'), identifies the resource ('NWS alert event types'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning its relationship to 'nws_search_alerts' for filtering. It avoids tautology by explaining functionality beyond the name/title.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use to discover valid values for the event filter in nws_search_alerts, or to browse alert categories') and provides an alternative context ('browse alert categories'). It also clarifies 'No parameters required,' indicating simplicity compared to parameter-heavy siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
nws_search_alertsNws Search AlertsARead-onlyInspect
Search active weather alerts (watches, warnings, advisories) across the US. Filter by state, coordinates, zone, event type, severity, urgency, or certainty. Omit all filters for a national search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | US state/territory code (e.g., "WA", "OK", "PR") or marine area code (e.g., "GM"). | |
| zone | No | NWS forecast zone (e.g., "WAZ558") or county zone (e.g., "WAC033"). | |
| event | No | Filter to specific event types (e.g., ["Tornado Warning"]). Matches are case-insensitive and partial, so "tornado" matches both "Tornado Warning" and "Tornado Watch". Use nws_list_alert_types to discover valid names. | |
| point | No | Coordinates as "lat,lon" (e.g., "47.6,-122.3"). Returns alerts whose geometry contains this point. | |
| status | No | Alert status filter. Default "Actual". Use a different value only when you specifically need non-live alerts. | Actual |
| urgency | No | Filter by urgency level. | |
| severity | No | Filter by severity level. | |
| certainty | No | Filter by certainty level. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Total number of matching alerts |
| shown | Yes | Number of alerts included in this response |
| alerts | Yes | Matching alerts (capped at 25) |
| filters | Yes | Summary of applied search filters |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about filtering capabilities and the national search default, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with filtering options and usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted phrasing.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, comprehensive schema coverage (100%), the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides complete contextual information. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, and references related tools without needing to duplicate structured data.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the same filtering parameters but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the specific action ('Search active weather alerts') and resource ('across the US'), with explicit mention of alert types ('watches, warnings, advisories'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like nws_get_forecast or nws_get_observations by focusing on alerts rather than forecasts or observations.
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 provides clear context for usage ('Omit all filters for a national search') and mentions a sibling tool for discovering valid event types ('Use nws_list_alert_types to discover valid names'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nws_find_stations or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!