Get a multi-day weather forecast for a location.
Returns daily high/low temperatures and precipitation for 1-16 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of forecast days (1-16, default 7). | |
| npub | No | Required. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing. | |
| latitude | Yes | Latitude (-90 to 90). | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude (-180 to 180). | |
| dpop_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure but does not mention authentication requirements (npub is required but not described as auth), rate limits, caching, or the credit billing mechanism. Behavioral traits beyond output are omitted.
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?
Extremely concise at two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and output details in the second. No redundant information.
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 covers the return values but omits critical context such as the requirement for an npub for credit billing, the purpose of dpop_token, and any authentication flow. For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, this is insufficient for the agent to handle billing and authorization correctly.
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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it implicitly references 'days' via 'multi-day' but offers no extra context for npub (required for billing) or dpop_token.
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 retrieves a multi-day weather forecast for a location, specifying return values (daily high/low temperatures and precipitation) and the range of days (1-16). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'weather_current' (current conditions) and 'weather_historical' (past data).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as weather_current or weather_historical. The description does not clarify that this is for future forecasts only, leaving the agent to infer usage context without direction.
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.