Noaa Swpc

Forecast Text

forecast_text

Read-onlyIdempotent

3-day SWPC forecast discussion (raw text).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	3-day SWPC forecast discussion as plain text
`format`	Yes	Response format identifier

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: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "body": {
+      "description": "3-day SWPC forecast discussion as plain text",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "format": {
+      "description": "Response format identifier",
+      "enum": [
+        "text"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "format",
+    "body"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 16, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the output is raw text and covers a 3-day period, but provides no other behavioral details (e.g., update frequency, formatting).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that conveys key information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity, no parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials. However, it lacks any usage context or alternative tool references, so it's not fully complete.

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 no parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's output: a 3-day SWPC forecast discussion in raw text. This differentiates it from sibling tools like kp_index or aurora_forecast, which provide specific space weather metrics.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies that this tool is used to retrieve the raw forecast discussion text, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over other space weather tools. No alternatives are named.

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.