space_weather_alertsRetrieve recent NOAA SWPC space-weather alerts, warnings, and watches to assess geomagnetic storm, solar flare, and proton event impacts on satellites and operations.
Recent NOAA SWPC alerts, warnings and watches (geomagnetic storms, flares, proton events) with their stated impacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-dependency behavior are covered. The description adds genuine content context (the alert categories and that stated impacts are included), but says nothing about the default time window, ordering, or result volume, which matters for a feed-style tool.
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; the alert types are parenthetically grouped rather than padded. It is well sized, though it could have spent a few extra words on the time-window parameter instead of listing event types.
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 no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description carries the burden for explaining the return shape and the meaning of hours/limit, and it does neither. An agent can identify the tool but cannot confidently scope a call.
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% for the two parameters (hours, limit) and the description never mentions either. 'Recent' only loosely hints at the hours window and gives no clue about the limit parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 names a concrete resource (NOAA SWPC alerts, warnings and watches) and enumerates the event types it covers (geomagnetic storms, flares, proton events), so the agent knows exactly what entity is returned. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling space_weather_now, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus space_weather_now or the other siblings, no mention of defaults, and no indication of how far back 'recent' reaches. The agent must guess whether this is a historical-feed tool or a current-conditions tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.