Retrieve NDBC buoy observations for wave height, wind, pressure, and water temperature to monitor sea conditions and inform marine or weather decisions.
NDBC marine buoy observations — wave height, wind, pressure, water temp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | No | short |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load, and it discloses only the upstream source. It says nothing about spatial scope (global buoys vs. a region), whether all stations or a filtered set are returned, freshness/latency of observations, or how the 'detail' parameter changes the response — the key behavioral unknown for a single-parameter tool.
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?
One compact sentence-fragment that front-loads the source and then the payload. Nothing is redundant, though the terse format leaves behavior and the detail parameter unaddressed.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not owed. Still, for a parameterized observation tool the missing spatial scope and the undocumented 'detail' flag are gaps an agent needs filled before calling it correctly.
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 single parameter 'detail' has 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell from either source what values 'detail' accepts or what 'short' versus any other setting yields.
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?
Names a specific data source (NDBC marine buoys) and enumerates the observation types returned (wave height, wind, pressure, water temp), which distinguishes it from maritime siblings like query_vessels or maritime_chokepoints. It omits an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'fetch', but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, what conditions select it over alternatives like weather_sondes or maritime_coverage, or any prerequisite. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.