marine
Server Details
Marine MCP — wraps marine-api.open-meteo.com (free, no auth)
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- pipeworx-io/mcp-marine
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides current wave conditions, while the other offers a multi-day forecast. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool based on whether immediate or future data is needed.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' as the prefix, followed by descriptive nouns ('current_waves' and 'wave_forecast'). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a marine domain that could include additional data like tides, weather, or historical conditions. While the tools cover current and forecast waves, the scope is limited, potentially requiring agents to seek other sources for comprehensive marine information.
The tools cover current and forecast wave data, which are core aspects, but there are notable gaps such as missing tide information, historical data, or location-based searches. This could lead to agent failures if broader marine conditions are needed, though basic wave queries are supported.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_current_wavesAInspect
Get current wave conditions for a coastal location. Returns wave height, period, and direction right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Latitude of the location. | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude of the location. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values (wave height, period, direction) and temporal scope ('right now'), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data availability, accuracy, rate limits, or error conditions that would help the agent understand behavioral traits.
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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently convey key information without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value by specifying what it does and what it returns.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, return values, and temporal scope. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on behavioral aspects like error handling or data sources to be fully comprehensive.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (latitude and longitude) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as coordinate format or valid ranges, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Get current wave conditions'), the resource ('for a coastal location'), and the scope ('right now'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_wave_forecast' by specifying current conditions versus forecast 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?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'current wave conditions' and 'right now', suggesting this tool is for real-time data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling 'get_wave_forecast' or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_wave_forecastAInspect
Get a multi-day daily wave forecast for a coastal location. Returns maximum wave height, wave period, and dominant wave direction per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of forecast days (1-7, default 7). | |
| latitude | Yes | Latitude of the location. | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude of the location. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the data is cached/live. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks operational context.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, scope, and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a read-only forecasting tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what data is returned. However, it could benefit from mentioning typical response format or data sources. The combination of clear purpose and parameter documentation makes it mostly complete.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining coordinate systems or day range implications. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Get a multi-day daily wave forecast'), the resource ('for a coastal location'), and the output format ('maximum wave height, wave period, and dominant wave direction per day'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_current_waves' by specifying it's a forecast rather than current conditions.
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 when to use this tool (for multi-day forecasts rather than current conditions), which differentiates it from 'get_current_waves'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention any prerequisites or alternatives beyond the sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!