Retrieve hourly weather forecasts for a coordinate in Sweden and the Nordic area, including temperature, wind, gusts, precipitation, humidity, and symbol code.
Hourly SMHI weather forecast for a point (lat 52-72, lon 2-35): temperature, wind, gusts, precipitation, humidity, symbol code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| hours | 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source (SMHI) and the valid coordinate window, but says nothing about behavior outside that window, units, timezone of the hourly steps, or rate limits, and the read-only nature is only implied by 'forecast'.
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 dense sentence with no waste: resource, provider, valid domain and output fields are front-loaded in that order. Nothing could be cut without losing substance.
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 detailed (though they are listed anyway). The geographic constraint closes the highest-risk gap for a coordinate-based call; the only real omission is the 'hours' parameter and any note on behavior at the domain edges.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load. It adds real value by supplying valid lat/lon ranges that the schema lacks, but the third parameter 'hours' (default 24) is never mentioned, leaving its meaning and bounds undocumented anywhere.
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?
Names a specific resource (hourly SMHI weather forecast), the exact physical domain it applies to (lat 52-72, lon 2-35), and the returned variables, so an agent can separate it from get_observation and get_warnings without opening the schema.
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 by the resource name: an agent can infer 'forecast = future conditions' vs 'observation = past conditions' vs 'warnings = alerts', but the description never states when to prefer this tool or what prerequisites exist. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.