weather-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves weather alerts, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. It avoids unnecessary details and wastes no words, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on what the tool returns or its operational constraints would improve completeness.

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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema only indicates a required string parameter 'state' with no description. The description clarifies that 'state' is a 'Two-letter US state code (e.g. CA, NY)', providing essential format and examples that the schema lacks. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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: 'Get weather alerts for a US state.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('weather alerts'), and geographic scope ('US state'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_forecast', which likely provides different weather data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 mentions the sibling tool 'get_forecast' in the context signals, but the description itself offers no comparison, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.

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