Smarter Weather

Get hazard outlooks

get_outlooks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Hazard outlooks affecting a location. hazard=severe returns SPC convective outlooks (Day 1-8 categorical risk + tornado/wind/hail probabilities); hazard=fire returns SPC fire weather outlooks; hazard=rain returns WPC Excessive Rainfall Outlook polygons (days 1-3); hazard=heat returns the NWS HeatRisk index at the point (0 none .. 4 extreme, days 1-3). include_narrative=true adds the forecaster discussion for severe (SWO), fire (FWD), or rain (QPF/QPFERD; one PIL for all days). An empty result means no outlook covers the point -- not a failure. Examples: {"location": "Moore, OK", "hazard": "severe", "include_narrative": true} or {"location": "Phoenix", "hazard": "heat"}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`day`	No	Outlook day for the narrative filter (1-8). Default 1.
`lat`	No	Latitude in decimal degrees (-90 to 90). Most tools also accept a `location` place-name string instead of lat/lon.
`lon`	No	Longitude in decimal degrees (-180 to 180). For continental US use negative values (west of the prime meridian).
`hazard`	No	Hazard family: severe = SPC convective, fire = SPC fire weather, rain = WPC excessive rainfall, heat = NWS HeatRisk index. (Winter/WSSI is a planned expansion.)	severe
`location`	No	Free-text place: city ("Denver"), city+state ("Portland, OR"), US ZIP ("50219"), or "lat,lon" ("39.74,-104.99"). Provide either this OR explicit lat+lon, not both.
`include_narrative`	No	Include the forecaster narrative for the requested day (severe, fire, and rain).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`day`	Yes
`hazard`	Yes
`location`	Yes
`outlooks`	Yes
`heat_risk`	No
`narrative`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedJul 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / hazard / description

Previous value: -"Hazard family: severe = SPC convective, fire = SPC fire weather, heat = NWS HeatRisk index. (Excessive rain and winter impacts are planned expansions.)"New value: +"Hazard family: severe = SPC convective, fire = SPC fire weather, rain = WPC excessive rainfall, heat = NWS HeatRisk index. (Winter/WSSI is a planned expansion.)"

changedInput schema / properties / hazard / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "severe",
-  "fire",
-  "heat"
-]New value: +[
+  "severe",
+  "fire",
+  "rain",
+  "heat"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / include_narrative / description

Previous value: -"Include the SPC forecaster narrative for the requested day (severe and fire)."New value: +"Include the forecaster narrative for the requested day (severe, fire, and rain)."

Changed3 schema fields changedJul 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / day / description

Previous value: -"Outlook day for the narrative filter (1-3). Default 1."New value: +"Outlook day for the narrative filter (1-8). Default 1."

changedInput schema / properties / day / maximum
```
Previous value: -3New value: +8
```

changedInput schema / properties / include_narrative / description

Previous value: -"Include the SPC outlook narrative text for the requested day."New value: +"Include the SPC forecaster narrative for the requested day (severe and fire)."

First observedJul 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that an empty result means no outlook covers the point, not an error, and by clarifying narrative behavior for severe/fire/rain. This is meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then hazard-specific behavior, then the empty-result caveat, then examples. There is no filler and no restating of what the schema already provides.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With a full input schema and an output schema present, the description adds what remains necessary: per-hazard return semantics, narrative behavior, empty-result semantics, and representative usage examples. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: severe returns Day 1-8 categorical risk plus tornado/wind/hail probabilities, rain returns Day 1-3 polygons, heat returns a 0-4 index, and narrative returns specific PILs. The examples also make valid parameter combinations concrete.

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 opens with "Hazard outlooks affecting a location" and then precisely maps each hazard value to a concrete product family (SPC convective, SPC fire weather, WPC Excessive Rainfall, NWS HeatRisk). This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from the forecast, alerts, and observation siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to call the tool: when a user needs hazard outlooks at a point, and it explains how the hazard parameter selects among severe/fire/rain/heat. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it misses the top tier, but the context is unambiguous.

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

All Smarter Weather 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.