Find the active SMHI observation station nearest a given latitude and longitude, optionally filtered by measurement parameter (e.g., air temperature).
Nearest active SMHI observation station for a point. parameter: SMHI metobs parameter id (1 = air temperature).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| parameter | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait, that only 'active' stations are returned, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, distance/search radius behavior, or what happens when no station is nearby for the given parameter.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one parameter that needs explaining. No filler; slightly terse rather than bloated.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits permission needs, behavior when no station matches, and the meaning of 'active', leaving gaps an agent may hit in practice.
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 does explain the non-obvious 'parameter' argument (SMHI metobs parameter id, with 1 = air temperature), but leaves lat and lon entirely undocumented beyond their self-evident names.
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?
States a specific verb (find) and resource (nearest active SMHI observation station) with a clear input scope (a point). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_observation or get_forecast, though it does not name or explicitly contrast them.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a station-lookup step before fetching observations, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Nothing misleading, but the routing guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.