Open Meteo 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 'gets' forecasts, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, error handling, or output format. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly communicates the tool's function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the required parameters or context, but it's still highly concise.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for effective tool invocation is insufficient, especially without annotations to fill gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (latitude, longitude, days) with types, ranges, defaults, and requirements. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying marine context, which is already covered by the tool's name and purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('marine weather forecasts'), including key components like waves and ocean conditions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_weather' or 'get_weather_forecast', which might also provide weather data but potentially for different contexts or with different focuses.

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. With siblings like 'get_current_weather' and 'get_weather_forecast', there's no indication of whether this tool is for marine-specific forecasts, how it differs in scope or data, or any prerequisites for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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