このプロジェクトは、気象関連ツールを提供するモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバーのデモ実装です。サーバーは以下の2つのツールを公開しています。
get-alerts : 指定された米国の州のアクティブな気象警報を取得します。
get-forecast : 緯度と経度に基づいて特定の場所の天気予報を提供します。
Node.js を使用して構築されました。
気象データ取得用の MCP ツールを実装します。
正確で最新の気象情報を得るために、米国国立気象局 API を使用します。
Related MCP server: Weather MCP Server
システムに Node.js がインストールされています。
MCP の概念とツールに関する知識。
Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の mcp-server-learn を自動的にインストールするには:
npx -y @smithery/cli install @adarshem/mcp-server-learn --client claudeリポジトリをクローンします。
git clone <repository-url>
cd weatherpnpmを使用して依存関係をインストールします (プロジェクトで構成されているとおり)。
pnpm installプロジェクトをビルドします。
pnpm buildVSCodeのsettings.jsonファイルを更新して、このMCPサーバーを追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"weather": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/ABSOLUTE/PATH/TO/PARENT/FOLDER/weather/build/index.js"
]
}
}
}米国国立気象局 API # mcp-server-learn
Get weather alerts for a state
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Two-letter state code (e.g. CA, NY) |
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 describe traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose 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 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 the alerts include, how they're formatted, or any limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective 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?
The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'state' parameter. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without needing extra description.
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 alerts for a state'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get-forecast', which likely provides different weather data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 its sibling 'get-forecast' or any alternatives. It lacks context about usage scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, offering only a basic statement of function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get weather forecast for a location
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Latitude of the location | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude of the location |
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 describe any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the response format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about behavioral aspects, response format, or how this tool differs from its sibling. For a tool with this level of complexity and lack of structured data, the description should do more to compensate.
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 both parameters (latitude and longitude) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3.
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. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-alerts', which likely provides different weather-related information, so it doesn't achieve the highest score.
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 the sibling 'get-alerts' or explain the difference between getting a forecast versus alerts, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0get-alertsget-forecastScored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get-alerts focuses on weather alerts for a state, while get-forecast provides weather forecasts for a location. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on the need for alerts versus forecasts.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens (get-alerts and get-forecast). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand, with no deviations in naming conventions.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a weather domain, as it lacks essential operations like current conditions, historical data, or radar information. While the tools are well-defined, the count is too low to provide comprehensive coverage for typical weather-related tasks.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a weather server, missing core functionalities such as current weather conditions, historical data, radar maps, and air quality information. This limited surface will likely cause agent failures when users request common weather data beyond alerts and forecasts.
Hosted MCP server for Xweather weather data: conditions, forecasts, alerts, and more.
The official Model Context Protocol server for Ambee. It gives any MCP-compatible AI assistant — Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, VS Code, Ollama, and more direct access to live air quality, pollen, and weather data. To get started, including information on signing up and obtaining your Ambee key, check out the Ambee documentation on https://docs.ambeedata.com
MCP server for weather with reasoning — umbrella advice, outdoor checks, city comparisons.
NOAA and ECMWF weather forecast MCP for discovery, validation, and GribStream OAuth queries.
