Kolmo Construction

Exterior-work weather window

get_weather_window

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if upcoming weather in Seattle is suitable for an exterior construction project. Returns a day-by-day forecast with go/no-go recommendations based on project-specific requirements (temperature, rain, wind). Perfect for scheduling exterior painting, decking, roofing, landscaping, siding, or fencing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Number of days to forecast (1-14, default 7)
`projectType`	Yes	Type of project to check weather suitability for

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`summary`	No
`forecast`	No
`location`	Yes
`attribution`	Yes
`projectType`	No
`forecastDays`	Yes
`requirements`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying the day-by-day forecast format and the go/no-go criteria (temperature, rain, wind), going beyond the 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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the main purpose and output; the second supplies relevant use cases.

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?

A simple two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and output schema. The description covers location, purpose, output shape, and the decision criteria, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions project-specific requirements and lists project types, but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check if upcoming weather in Seattle is suitable for an exterior construction project') and a clear output ('go/no-go recommendations'). It is unambiguously the weather tool among the sibling set.

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?

Provides clear use context with concrete project types ('Perfect for scheduling exterior painting, decking, roofing, landscaping, siding, or fencing'). It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the intended usage is evident.

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

All Kolmo Construction tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_neighborhood_project_activity and get_neighbor_permit_activity are easy to confuse, and get_material_catalog vs get_material_options have overlapping scope. The detailed descriptions mostly resolve ambiguity, so it stays above average.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming follows a mostly consistent get_/list_ verb-noun pattern, with a small set of other descriptive verbs like check_, estimate_, and resolve_. The neighbor/neighborhood naming collision and a few multi-word exceptions are the main inconsistencies.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the surface is heavy and exceeds the 25+ threshold, spanning permits, estimates, content, reviews, financing, weather, and procurement. While each cluster has plausible value, the overall count feels bloated for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The set covers a broad lifecycle: permit research, estimates, licensing, financing, ROI, weather, project/services content, reviews, and lead submission. Minor gaps like scheduling/booking and direct estimate persistence prevent a perfect score.

Resources

Need Help?