get_weather
Get current weather for a city worldwide via Open-Meteo + OSM geocoding. Returns: {city, lat, lon, temperature_c, windspeed_kmh, weather_code}
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes |
Get current weather for a city worldwide via Open-Meteo + OSM geocoding. Returns: {city, lat, lon, temperature_c, windspeed_kmh, weather_code}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral traits. It names the external APIs (Open-Meteo + OSM) and return fields, but does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or confirm read-only nature. Adequate for a simple lookup tool but could be more explicit.
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, no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by the return format. Highly efficient.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what it does and returns. Could mention error cases or limits, but not critical for basic 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?
The single parameter 'city' is given meaning beyond the schema type: it indicates the city name and implies geocoding. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds needed 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?
Clearly states it gets current weather for a city worldwide, specifying the data sources and return fields. Distinct from sibling tools which cover travel currency, country info, and health checks.
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 weather queries but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no conflict, but lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.