Smarter Weather Developer Onboarding
Server Details
Agent-first onboarding to Smarter Weather: plans, docs, signup, API keys, MCP config, billing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: documentation searching, plan/pricing display, and signup URL retrieval. There is no overlap in functionality.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_documentation, get_plans, sign_up). The use of 'sign_up' as a phrasal verb is a minor deviation from the simple 'get_noun' structure, but overall predictable.
Three tools cover the essential onboarding steps: documentation, pricing, and signup. The count is slightly low but well-scoped for a focused onboarding server.
The tools cover the initial onboarding workflow well, but there is a minor gap in post-signup actions (e.g., key management or status checks) that could complement the set.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_documentationSearch Smarter Weather documentationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search the Smarter Weather developer documentation index (quickstart, REST API, MCP server, errors, rate limits, SDKs, pricing, API keys). Returns up to 5 matching entries with title, URL, and an actionable summary. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search terms, e.g. "authenticate rest api" (max 200 chars) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns up to 5 entries with title, URL, and summary, and no auth required. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences: first specifies action and scope, second specifies output format and constraint. No superfluous information. Efficient and well-structured.
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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers action, return format, limit, and authentication. It omits behavior for no results or error cases, but is otherwise complete for a simple search tool.
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 100% and the schema already includes a description for the query parameter with an example. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Smarter Weather developer documentation index'. It lists specific topics covered (quickstart, REST API, etc.) and implicitly distinguishes from siblings get_plans and sign_up by its unique action and resource.
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 for searching documentation and explicitly states no authentication required. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but given the sibling tools are unrelated, context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_plansGet Smarter Weather developer plansARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Current developer-platform plans and pricing: Free, Developer, and Professional tiers with monthly price, included API-call allowance, and overage rates. One metered allowance spans REST and MCP usage. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds that no authentication is needed and that one metered allowance spans REST and MCP usage, providing extra behavioral 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (plans, prices, allowance, overage, authentication). Complete for a simple info retrieval tool.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns (tiers, pricing, allowances), which is valuable beyond the empty schema.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves current developer-platform plans and pricing, listing specific tiers, costs, and features. Distinguishes well from sibling tools get_documentation and sign_up.
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?
Explicitly mentions 'No authentication required' and describes what data is returned. While not specifying when not to use, the context is clear for this read-only tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sign_upGet the Smarter Weather signup URLARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Returns the Smarter Weather developer signup URL (with MCP referral attribution). Signup is a web flow: present the URL to the user and ask them to complete it in a browser, then authenticate this MCP server via OAuth to continue onboarding (key minting, client configuration). No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| widget | No | sw-ui-spec widget block rendered by the MCP Apps onboarding widget (ui://onboarding-widget/v1/index.html). Additive; safe to ignore. |
| signupUrl | Yes | |
| instructions | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so safety is clear. Description adds that no authentication is required for this call and explains the web flow, providing useful context beyond annotations.
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?
Three sentences, no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
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 no parameters, annotations, and output schema exists, the description fully explains the tool's role and how to use the result. No gaps evident.
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?
No parameters, schema coverage 100%. Description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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?
Description clearly states it returns the Smarter Weather developer signup URL with MCP referral attribution. The verb 'returns' and resource 'signup URL' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings (get_documentation, get_plans) which serve different purposes.
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?
Explicitly instructs to present the URL to the user for browser completion and then authenticate via OAuth. Does not cover when not to use, but the context is clear given the tool's singular purpose.
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!