forecast_gridGFS/ECMWF grid forecast.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| time | No | ||
| units | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| daily | No | Daily grid forecast | |
| hourly | No | Hourly grid forecast | |
| latitude | No | Latitude of forecast point | |
| timezone | No | Timezone of location | |
| longitude | No | Longitude of forecast point |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "lat": 40.7128,
+ "lon": -74.006
+ },
+ {
+ "lat": 35.6762,
+ "lon": 139.6503,
+ "time": "2024-01-15T00:00:00Z",
+ "units": "us"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "GFS/ECMWF grid forecast response",
+ "properties": {
+ "daily": {
+ "description": "Daily grid forecast",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Array of daily forecasts",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "hourly": {
+ "description": "Hourly grid forecast",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Array of hourly forecasts",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "ceilingHeight": {
+ "description": "Ceiling height",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "cloudCover": {
+ "description": "Cloud cover percentage",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "dewpoint": {
+ "description": "Dew point",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "precipitationRate": {
+ "description": "Precipitation rate",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "pressure": {
+ "description": "Pressure",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "relativeHumidity": {
+ "description": "Relative humidity",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "temperature": {
+ "description": "Temperature",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "time": {
+ "description": "Unix timestamp",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "visibility": {
+ "description": "Visibility",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "windDirection": {
+ "description": "Wind direction degrees",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "windGust": {
+ "description": "Wind gust speed",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "windSpeed": {
+ "description": "Wind speed",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "latitude": {
+ "description": "Latitude of forecast point",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "longitude": {
+ "description": "Longitude of forecast point",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "timezone": {
+ "description": "Timezone of location",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description is not required to repeat these. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond annotations, resulting in a baseline score.
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 very short but not necessarily concise in conveying meaning. It is a single phrase with no structure or prioritization of key information.
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?
Despite having an output schema and multiple parameters, the description lacks essential context about return values, grid resolution, or usage scenarios. It is incomplete for effective tool selection.
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 0%. The description does not explain the meaning of lat, lon, time, or units. The examples provide clues but the description itself offers no semantic context.
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 'GFS/ECMWF grid forecast' identifies the data source but lacks a verb and does not differentiate from the sibling 'forecast' tool. It is vague about what action the tool performs.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forecast'. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct in purpose but some overlaps exist, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several polymarket analysis tools. Detailed descriptions help, but the sheer variety and similar intent of some tools could confuse agents.
Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), single words (forecast), action_noun (bet_research), prefixes (polymarket_, pipeworx_), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No uniform pattern.
33 tools is too many for a server named 'Pirate Weather' that only has two weather-specific tools. The tool count feels inflated with many meta-tools and unrelated domains, exceeding a coherent scope.
Coverage is incomplete for the implied weather focus (only two tools). Other domains like prediction markets are better covered, but overall the surface is a mix of partial offerings with clear gaps (e.g., no update/delete for subscriptions).