water_levelFetch observed (verified) water level readings for a NOAA station over a date range (YYYYMMDD format), referenced to a tidal datum (default MLLW). Returns timestamped water-height values in english or metric units.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datum | No | ||
| units | No | ||
| station | Yes | ||
| end_date | Yes | ||
| time_zone | No | ||
| begin_date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "begin_date": "2024-01-01",
+ "end_date": "2024-01-07",
+ "station": "8454000"
+ },
+ {
+ "begin_date": "2024-01-01",
+ "end_date": "2024-01-07",
+ "station": "8454000",
+ "time_zone": "gmt",
+ "units": "metric"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Observed water level data for a station",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: readings are observed/verified, referenced to a tidal datum, and returned as timestamped water-height values. This is consistent with annotations and enriches the tool's behavioral profile.
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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds essential format and output details efficiently.
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 tool with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers most key aspects: data type, station, date range, datum, units, and output. An output schema exists, so return values don't need elaboration. The only gap is the time_zone parameter, but overall it is sufficiently complete for practical use.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains station, begin/end date format, datum default, and units. However, time_zone is not mentioned, leaving that parameter's semantics to be inferred from its name.
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 states exactly what the tool does: fetch observed (verified) water level readings for a NOAA station over a date range. It distinguishes from sibling tools like predictions and currents by explicitly saying 'observed (verified)' and by focusing on water level data for a station.
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 provides clear usage context: date format (YYYYMMDD), datum default (MLLW), and unit options (english/metric). It implies when to use – for observed, verified water level readings – but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
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.