Live tropical cyclones (typhoons/hurricanes) currently active on ocean trade lanes — name, basin, category, center position, max wind, pressure and movement, from CMA (NW-Pacific) + NHC (Atlantic/E-Pacific) + JTWC (Indian/Southern Hemisphere) + GDACS (global). Use this to see which storms are at sea right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 data sources (CMA, NHC, JTWC, GDACS) and output fields (name, basin, category, etc.), giving a clear picture of what to expect. It could enhance transparency by mentioning update frequency or behavior when no storms are active, but the current level is strong.
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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and key attributes, and the second sentence reinforces the use case. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey return format. It lists specific fields (name, basin, category, etc.) and sources, providing enough context for the agent to understand the response structure. However, it does not mention potential error states or performance considerations.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meaning. The baseline score is 4, and the description adds value by detailing the output structure, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('active') and resource ('cyclones'), clearly indicating it returns live tropical cyclones with attributes like name, basin, category, and position. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lane_storm_exposure' which focus on lane-specific exposure, not general cyclone status.
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 states the tool is for seeing 'which storms are at sea right now,' implying a current snapshot use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings (e.g., for historical data or lane-specific analysis), leaving the agent to infer context.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of ocean shipping: storms, carrier performance, lane schedules, port conditions, and alerts. Even overlapping areas like carrier reliability and lane comparisons are clearly differentiated by scope and purpose.
All tools use consistent snake_case naming. Most follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern, though some start with verbs (e.g., compare_lanes, find_sailings) and others with nouns (e.g., carrier_league, port_congestion). This is predictable but not perfectly uniform.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for the domain of ocean scheduling. Each tool provides meaningful functionality without redundancy, covering storms, carriers, lanes, ports, and alerts.
The tool surface covers core information needs: storms, carrier reliability, lane schedules, port congestion, transit times, and alerts. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking detailed vessel info or carrier-specific data beyond reliability, but the overall coverage is strong for an informational service.
