Check weather forecasts for an Italian city for the next 1 to 7 days. Use it to answer questions about tomorrow, the weekend, or upcoming days.
Previsioni del tempo per i prossimi giorni in una localita italiana. Usalo quando l'utente chiede il tempo di domani, del fine settimana o dei prossimi giorni. Il parametro giorni va da 1 a 7.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citta | Yes | ||
| giorni | 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the giorni range (1-7) and the Italian locality scope, which is helpful, but it does not describe the response format, data source, or error behavior. Overall, it adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.
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 three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the usage guidance follows, and the key parameter constraint is stated clearly. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple two-parameter weather forecast tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the main parameter constraint. It could mention the response format, but that is a minor omission for this use case.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to citta as an Italian locality and constrains giorni to a 1-7 range, going beyond the bare schema type definitions. The default of 3 is left to the schema, which is acceptable.
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 that the tool provides weather forecasts for upcoming days in an Italian locality, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool meteo_adesso (current weather). It lacks an explicit verb like 'fornisce' or 'ottiene', but the resource and scope are unmistakable.
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 explicitly says to use the tool when the user asks about tomorrow, the weekend, or upcoming days. It does not explicitly name the alternative for current weather, but the sibling context and timeframe distinction make the usage boundary clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.