Japan Typhoon Tracker MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the data is FREE and sourced from JMA, but says nothing about update cadence, geographic scope, or result format — the things that matter for a live-weather feed.

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 terse fragments with the most decision-relevant fact (FREE) front-loaded. No filler, though '(target list)' is opaque enough to not quite earn its place.

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 no-param read tool this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema, so the description is the only place to say what a storm record looks like or how fresh the data is — and it doesn't.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify parameter-wise, and it correctly signals the tool takes no input.

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 phrase 'Active tropical cyclones tracked by JMA' names a specific resource and data source, so an agent knows what it gets back. The verb is implicit ('list') and '(target list)' is cryptic, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling storm_list.

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 never says when to use this tool versus storm_list or storm_detail. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing cues — an agent must guess whether this is the discovery endpoint or filtered by something.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirement (the access_token param is only explained in the schema), no failure behavior despite the hedged 'Try to fetch', no indication of what 'forecast detail' contains. The unexplained 'PRO.' tag adds no usable context.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key information front-loaded. The only waste is the unexplained 'PRO.' token and the weak 'Try to' hedge.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing what 'forecast detail' returns and whether failures are expected. No output schema means the description should have sketched the response shape.

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 coverage is 50%: access_token is documented in the schema, while tropical_cyclone has no schema description. The description compensates well by giving the expected id format (e.g. TC2636) and its source ('the target list'), which is exactly the missing information an agent 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('fetch forecast detail for a tropicalCyclone id'), which is clearly distinguishable from the list-style siblings storm_list and active_typhoons. The 'PRO.' prefix and hedged 'Try to fetch' slightly muddy it, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

'from the target list' implies the id must come from storm_list, which is useful routing, but it never explicitly says when to use this versus the siblings or what happens if the id is unknown. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a paid tier via 'PRO' but says nothing about auth requirements beyond the schema hint, rate limits, result size, or ordering.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but 'PRO' is cryptic and the second sentence is too compressed to convey scope, so brevity here costs clarity rather than earning it.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should indicate what the list contains and how it relates to active_typhoons and storm_detail. Neither is covered.

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?

Only one optional parameter whose schema description fully documents it (100% coverage). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 names a resource (JMA tropical cyclone list), but 'target' is unexplained and the tool's distinction from the sibling active_typhoons (all storms vs. active only) has to be inferred.

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?

No when/when-not guidance and no mention of the two siblings. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call this or active_typhoons for current storms.

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