Current weather and multi-day forecast for any location. Provide coordinates or a city name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Latitude | |
| lon | No | Longitude | |
| days | No | Forecast days (1-7, default 3) | |
| units | No | metric or imperial | metric |
| location | No | City name (geocoded automatically) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that city names are 'geocoded automatically' but does not mention rate limits, data source, or what happens if inputs are conflicting or invalid. The behavior is reasonable but minimal.
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 unnecessary words or redundant details. 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?
With no output schema and five parameters, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on the output format (e.g., what fields are returned), error handling, or usage nuances. Adequate but not thorough.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context ('Provide coordinates or a city name') clarifying the relationship between parameters, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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?
The description clearly states 'Current weather and multi-day forecast' with input options ('coordinates or a city name'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools geocode_address and get_timezone, 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?
The description implies usage for weather retrieval and mentions two input methods. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer one input over the other or compare with siblings, though the distinct purpose makes this less critical.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: geocoding, timezone lookup, and weather retrieval. There is no overlap in their purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (geocode_address, get_timezone, get_weather) and use snake_case uniformly.
Three tools is appropriate for the server's scope—geocoding, timezone, and weather—covering core needs without being excessive.
The set includes forward/reverse geocoding, timezone data, and weather forecasts. Minor gaps like weather alerts or bulk geocoding exist but are not essential for basic coverage.