mcp-madagascar

madagascar_get_weather

Get current weather for a Madagascar city or explicit coordinates using Open-Meteo.

Instructions

Fetch current weather from Open-Meteo for a Madagascar reference city or explicit coordinates.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "madagascar_get_weather"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lat`	No	Latitude if city is omitted.
`lon`	No	Longitude if city is omitted.
`city`	No	Known city: Antananarivo, Toamasina, Antsirabe, Mahajanga, Fianarantsoa, Toliara, Antsiranana, Sambava, Manakara, Morondava.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The word 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and naming Open-Meteo as the source is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose response format, potential errors, data freshness, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic fetch action.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action, source, and location options without redundancy.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple weather fetch tool: it states what, from where, and the location options. Full parameter details live in the schema, and the lack of an output schema is acceptable given the straightforward nature of weather retrieval. A minor gap is that it doesn't hint at what weather fields will be returned.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter already described, including the conditional relationship between city and lat/lon. The description's reference to 'a Madagascar reference city or explicit coordinates' reinforces but does not meaningfully expand the schema's parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('current weather from Open-Meteo'), and clearly scopes to Madagascar reference cities or explicit coordinates. This distinguishes it from the sibling data-search and alert tools.

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 implies usage for weather queries and clarifies the two ways to specify location (city or coordinates). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over its siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server