Weather MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the forecast includes (e.g., temperature, precipitation). The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point-like 'Args' section. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the burden on the description, but overall completeness is only adequate.

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 description explicitly lists and names the two parameters (latitude and longitude) in the 'Args' section, adding semantic context beyond the input schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide additional details like valid ranges, units, or examples, leaving some ambiguity despite covering the parameters.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weather forecast for a location'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_alerts', which likely serves a related but distinct function in weather data retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get_alerts' or explain scenarios where one might be preferred over the other, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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