Creates a 14-row monthly weather CSV in workspace/Meteo for create-site from global horizontal irradiation and temperature arrays, with optional diffuse and wind values.
[Sites & Weather] Create the 14-row monthly weather CSV for create-site in workspace/Meteo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| global_h | Yes | ||
| diffuse_h | No | ||
| temperature | Yes | ||
| wind_velocity | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses that a file is written at a specific path. It is silent on overwrite behavior, what happens to an existing CSV, whether the directory is created, and units (Wh/m² vs kWh/m², °C). For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the artifact definition leads. The '[Sites & Weather]' category prefix is family boilerplate rather than tool-specific information, which is the only mild waste.
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?
With 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum pin down array length enforcement, units, and optional-field behavior. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to construct a call correctly without guesswork.
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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It does add one useful semantic hint — '14-row' implies each array argument must supply 14 monthly values — but it never maps parameter names to meaning, states units, or explains the behavior when diffuse_h / wind_velocity are omitted (null defaults).
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?
States a concrete verb (create) and a concrete artifact (14-row monthly weather CSV) plus its destination path (workspace/Meteo), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the acquire/convert/inspect weather siblings by being the one that authors the monthly CSV consumed by create-site. It stops short of explicitly naming those 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 phrase 'for create-site' implies the downstream consumer, giving an implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives are named (e.g. pvsyst_convert_meteo, pvsyst_prepare_weather, pvsyst_inspect_weather_csv). The agent must infer this is the manual authoring path when no source weather file exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.