Noaa Swpc

Aurora Forecast

aurora_forecast

Read-onlyIdempotent

30-min ovation aurora forecast.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 22, 2026

addedInput schema / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  {}
+]
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "30-minute Ovation aurora forecast data",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the '30-min' time resolution and 'ovation' model type, which is useful context, but it does not describe the output format or any limitations. It is consistent with annotations, with no contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short phrase, highly concise. It conveys the essential purpose without waste. However, it is slightly under-specified, as it could mention that it returns a forecast or includes details about the ovation model, but for a zero-parameter tool this level of brevity is acceptable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, presence of an output schema), the description is largely complete. The output schema covers return value details, and the description states the subject and time frame. It is slightly lacking in usage context, but the overall context is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline per rubric is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the schema confirms no parameters exist, which is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing a 30-minute aurora forecast. It uses a specific noun phrase 'ovation aurora forecast' which indicates a specific model and time horizon. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'forecast_text' or 'kp_index', though the term 'aurora' is more specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools related to space weather and forecasts, the description provides no context for selecting this tool over others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Noaa Swpc tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.