Active wildfire detections from NASA FIRMS satellites. Lat/lon, brightness, confidence, scan time.
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": "wildfires"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, default 50 | |
| region | No | e.g. us-west, california |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions data source and fields but omits update frequency, rate limits, pagination, or read-only nature. Does not contradict annotations (which are empty).
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose. No wasted words, though could marginally benefit from more structure.
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?
No output schema, and description lists fields but does not explain output structure (e.g., units, format). Region parameter usage is vague. Adequately covers basic needs but lacks depth.
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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no new semantic information beyond what schema provides, so 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?
Description clearly states it provides active wildfire detections from NASA FIRMS satellites, listing key data fields. It is specific about the resource and source, though does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like weather or earthquake 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other environmental tools). Lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
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.