astrbot-mcp

get_weather

Retrieve current and forecast weather for a city without an API key, with optional forecast length from 1 to 16 days.

Instructions

查询城市天气（Open-Meteo，无需 API Key）。

Args: location: 城市名称，例如北京、Shanghai、Tokyo。 days: 预报天数，1-16。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "location": "<location>"
    },
    "name": "get_weather"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`location`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool uses Open-Meteo and requires no API Key, and it states the days range of 1–16. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, units, or other operational constraints, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with no 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists the two parameters efficiently. Every sentence adds information about either the operation, the provider, or the parameters, with no wasted prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read-only weather tool with an output schema, the description covers the source, no-key requirement, and both parameter meanings well enough to call it correctly. It could add unit or timezone expectations, but those are likely handled by the output schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so for both parameters: 'location' is described as a city name with examples like 北京, Shanghai, Tokyo, and 'days' is described as forecast days with a 1–16 range. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though it could have noted the default value of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: query city weather. It also names the data source (Open-Meteo) and notes that no API key is needed, so an agent can immediately identify the operation and its auth-free nature. No sibling tool covers weather, so differentiation is not an issue.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the tool's usage context implied by '查询城市天气' and the no-API-key note, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since there is no weather-related sibling, there is no obvious alternative to route to, but the guidance remains only implied.

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