NOAA space weather — solar flares, geomagnetic storms, solar wind speed, Kp index.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "space_weather"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Days back, default 1 | |
| type | No | planetary_k_index, solar_wind, flare |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists data types, omitting any details about data source update frequency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated.
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 a single concise sentence that lists the key data types. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by including an action verb.
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?
The description does not explain the output format, return structure, or what each type specifically yields. Given no output schema, the description should clarify the response. It also fails to contextualize the tool among similar siblings.
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%, and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, such as parameter usage patterns or constraints. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool provides NOAA space weather data including solar flares, geomagnetic storms, solar wind speed, and Kp index. It distinguishes the tool's broad scope from the sibling 'space_weather_kp', but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch'.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'space_weather_kp' likely specializes in Kp index, but the description does not mention it or any selection criteria.
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.