Skip to main content
Glama

epwforge-mcp

by io.github.guzz-labs

generate_weather_file

Generate and deliver an EPW or DDY file. A paid tool — charges credits per call: 1 for a single file, 1 per scenario for a scenarios batch (max 10), 10 for a per-model CMIP6 ensemble. Requires auth (Bearer API key or OAuth). Credits come from a Forge pass ($9.99/wk = 2 non-expiring credits, or $99/yr) or a top-up pack; see the epwforge://catalog/pricing resource. No account? Buy a fixed-price guest bundle — see preview_forge_bundle. For free analysis without credits, use analyze_weather or chart_weather on a real published EPW URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYesLatitude, decimal degrees
lonYesLongitude, decimal degrees
sspNoCMIP6 emission scenario. ssp370 is the recommended high-end for design; ssp585 (SSP5-8.5) is an opt-in extreme stress-test pathway (~4.4°C, low likelihood per IPCC AR6 / CMIP7) for worst-case analysis.
uhiNoUrban Heat Island preset
yearNoFuture horizon
basisNoWeather file basis (default: tmy)
smokeNoEnable wildfire smoke overlay
eventsNoComma-separated events. Valid: heatwave, coldsnap, hothumid, coldwindy. Pairs auto-compound (heat+humid, cold+wind).
formatNoOutput format (default: epw)
amy_yearNoYear for AMY basis
ensembleNoGenerate a per-model CMIP6 ensemble (~20 EPWs, one per climate model). Costs 10 credits. Requires ssp + year.
intensityNoPer-event "type:1-7" intensity (1-10 with stress_test=true). 5 = typical extreme, 7 = severe ~50-yr return.
scenariosNoBatch mode — array of configs, each generated in parallel. Same shape as the top-level config. When set, top-level config params are ignored. Costs 1 credit per scenario (up to 10).
percentileNoWarming percentile (default: 50)
tmy_periodNoTMYx vintage. Default 2011-2025.
include_ddyNoWhen format=epw, also include the matching DDY in the response (single-file only).
stress_testNoUnlock intensity 8-10. Default false.
event_durationNoEvent length in days (3-30, default 14). **For stress-test scenarios use 14-21 days** — shorter durations don't capture sustained operational impact (charging schedules, occupancy patterns, equipment cycling). 7 days is too short for any design or resilience analysis. Use 7-10 only for transient short-duration events.
intensity_autoNoAuto-fill unspecified intensities from IPCC AR6 (default: true)
smoke_durationNoSmoke days (3-30, default: 7)
smoke_intensityNoSmoke severity 1-10 → peak AOD 0.1-6.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: it's paid, credit costs per call, authentication requirements, and pricing resources. It lacks details on return format or error handling but sufficiently covers the paid nature and credit consumption.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and consists of 5 sentences covering purpose, cost, auth, pricing, and alternatives. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail, though it could be slightly more concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (21 parameters, no output schema), the description provides high-level context but omits details about the return format (e.g., file download mechanism), error states, and typical usage patterns. It adequately covers billing and authentication.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 21 parameters. The description adds value by explaining credit costs (e.g., 1 credit per single file, 10 for ensemble) and mentioning batch mode, but does not elaborate further on parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool generates and delivers EPW or DDY files. It uses a specific verb 'generate and deliver' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_weather and chart_weather by noting it's paid and produces files.

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?

The description provides explicit context for when to use this tool (paid file generation) and offers clear alternatives (analyze_weather, chart_weather) for free analysis. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the alternatives imply it.

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

All epwforge-mcp 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct primary function: analysis, charting, interactive exploration, station search, file generation, and bundle preview. Some overlap exists between 'analyze_weather' and 'explore_design_conditions', but descriptions clarify single-site vs. batch and interactive vs. static usage.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_weather, chart_weather, find_station). Verbs are action-oriented and nouns clearly indicate the target resource.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for EPW weather data tasks. Each tool serves a necessary function without superfluous additions, fitting the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows (find station, analyze stats, visualize, generate custom files, purchase) are covered. A minor gap is the lack of a direct raw file download tool, but the EPW URLs from 'find_station' effectively serve that purpose.

Resources