Weather MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it safely and effectively.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex alert data. It doesn't explain what 'weather alerts' entail (e.g., types, severity, timestamps) or how results are structured, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'state' fully documented in the schema (including format and constraints). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenriched parameter information.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('weather alerts for a state'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-forecast' (which might provide different weather data), so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-forecast' or 'get-feishu-doc'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate, offering only basic functional information.

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