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 output format ('in json') but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description implies a safe read operation but doesn't explicitly state it, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 the key information: the action, resource, and scope. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the sports types for clarity. Overall, it's appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or error handling. With no output schema, it doesn't explain return values, which is a gap, but the description compensates somewhat by mentioning the json format.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'q' described as 'Example value: London'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'q' represents (e.g., location query). However, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, 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: 'get listing of all upcoming sports events for football, cricket and golf in json.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('sports events'), scope ('upcoming'), and sports types ('football, cricket and golf'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'alerts_api' or 'forecast_weather_api', which are clearly different domains, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation.

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 context for usage. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for real-time data, historical data, or how it differs from other sports-related tools (though none are listed as siblings).

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