ipma_uv_forecastUV index forecast for Portugal from IPMA — daily peak-hours ultraviolet index for a Portuguese city (Lisbon, Porto, Algarve, Madeira, Azores) for the next ~3 days, with risk level (Low to Extreme). Example: ipma_uv_forecast({ city: "Faro" })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | Portuguese city, e.g. "Lisboa", "Porto", "Faro", "Funchal". Accent-insensitive. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "city": "Faro"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds useful context: daily peak-hours, risk levels, city restrictions, and forecast duration. No contradiction. It adds value beyond annotations.
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 sentences plus a code example. Extremely concise with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded and example clarifies usage.
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 exists, yet the description only briefly mentions 'risk level (Low to Extreme)' without detailing the return structure. For a simple tool, this may suffice, but more complete description of output format would be better.
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 one parameter (city). The description gives an example and lists city names, but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 UV index forecasts from IPMA for Portugal, specifies time frame (~3 days), risk levels, and example cities. It distinguishes from siblings like ipma_forecast and ipma_sea_forecast by focusing on UV.
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 implies use when needing UV index for Portuguese cities, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. The sibling context hints at other IPMA tools, but the description alone offers limited usage guidance.
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.