Open-Meteo 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 data source ('digital elevation models') but doesn't disclose critical traits like accuracy, resolution, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic operation.

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 core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get elevation data', 'for given coordinates', 'using digital elevation models') contributes essential information, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (geospatial data retrieval) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., elevation in meters), potential errors, or limitations (e.g., coverage areas). For a tool with no structured output information, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Latitude in WGS84 coordinate system'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as coordinate precision or expected units. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('elevation data'), and specifies the data source ('using digital elevation models'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on elevation rather than weather, climate, or other geospatial data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools like geocoding that might also handle coordinates.

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 sibling tools like 'geocoding' (which might convert addresses to coordinates) or other environmental tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., coordinate validity, data availability). Usage is implied only through the purpose statement.

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