Weather MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time vs. forecast data, or what format/timeframe the forecast covers. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and target without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the forecast returns (e.g., temperature, conditions, timeframe), whether it's free/paid, or any error conditions. For a weather tool that likely has important behavioral aspects, this minimal description leaves too much unspecified for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (latitude and longitude) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying location is needed. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any extra semantic context about parameter usage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'weather forecast for a location', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-alerts' or 'get-feishu-doc', but those appear to be unrelated weather tools, so differentiation isn't critical here. The description avoids tautology by specifying what kind of forecast (weather) rather than just restating the name.

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. While sibling tools like 'get-alerts' might be for weather alerts, there's no explicit mention of when to choose forecast over alerts or other weather-related tools. The description simply states what it does without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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