Weatherapi Com MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns forecast and tide data for up to 7 days, which is useful, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data format. For a weather API with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (returns marine weather and tide data, up to 7 days, global points). It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating scope from functionality.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on return values or operational constraints would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (q, days, lang). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying marine/sea points in the query, which is already covered by the schema's examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: it returns marine/sailing weather forecasts and tide data for global points, with a specific timeframe of up to 7 days. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'realtime_weather_api' or 'forecast_weather_api' by focusing on marine-specific data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'forecast_weather_api' or 'realtime_weather_api', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the marine focus alone.

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