ipma_locationsList the Portuguese cities and islands IPMA publishes weather forecasts for — district capitals plus Madeira and Azores islands — with their globalIdLocal codes and coordinates region. Filter by name. Example: ipma_locations({ query: "faro" })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional name filter (accent-insensitive substring), e.g. "faro", "santa". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "faro"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent; description adds what data is returned (globalIdLocal, coordinates) and scope (district capitals, islands). No contradiction.
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?
Two tight sentences with example, no fluff.
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, but description explains output components and data scope, fully adequate for a simple list tool.
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 covers 100% of parameter; description adds 'accent-insensitive substring' and example, enhancing meaning beyond 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?
Clearly states it lists Portuguese cities and islands with codes and coordinates, using specific verb 'List'. Differentiates from sibling tools like ipma_forecast.
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?
Provides explicit filtering example, implies use for obtaining location codes for other IPMA tools. No explicit when-not, but context sufficient.
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.