Retrieve the latest hourly observation at an SMHI station, like air temperature in Celsius, to check current conditions.
Latest-hour observed value at an SMHI station (parameter 1 = air temperature in °C).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parameter | No | ||
| station_id | Yes |
| 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 burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema — that only the most recent hour is returned, not arbitrary history — and that parameter 1 maps to air temperature in °C. It omits error behavior for stations without data, auth requirements, and any rate limits.
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 zero filler; the resource and its key constraint appear before the parenthetical detail. Nothing needs trimming.
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. For a simple 2-param lookup the description covers purpose, time scope, and one parameter, but leaves station_id semantics and non-default parameter codes unexplained, which is thin given the 0% schema coverage.
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 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents the meaning and unit of 'parameter' (1 = air temperature in °C) but says nothing about the required station_id or the other parameter codes, leaving half the surface undocumented.
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 specific verb+resource (observed value at an SMHI station) and scopes it temporally ('latest-hour'), which distinguishes it from the forecast-oriented sibling get_forecast. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 versus get_forecast, get_warnings, or find_nearest_station, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a station_id obtained from find_nearest_station). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.