Ein standardkonformer Model Context Protocol (MCP)-Server, der Echtzeit-Wettervorhersagen basierend auf Städtenamen mithilfe der Open-Meteo-API bereitstellt.
Geokodierung: Konvertiert automatisch Städtenamen in geografische Koordinaten (Breitengrad & Längengrad)
Echtzeit-Wetter: Ruft aktuelle Temperatur, Windgeschwindigkeit und Wettercodes ab
MCP-Integration: Vollständig kompatibel mit MCP-Clients wie Claude Desktop
Keine API-Schlüssel: Verwendet die kostenlose Open-Source-Open-Meteo-API – keine Registrierung erforderlich!
Related MCP server: MCP Weather Server
Node.js >= 18.x
npm oder yarn
Repository klonen:
git clone https://github.com/Yaseen-md/weather-mcp-server.git
cd weather-mcp-serverAbhängigkeiten installieren:
npm installServer erstellen:
npm run buildServer direkt ohne Erstellung ausführen:
npm run devUm diesen Wetterserver mit Claude Desktop zu verwenden, müssen Sie Ihre claude_desktop_config.json-Datei konfigurieren.
Mac: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Fügen Sie die folgende Konfiguration hinzu:
{
"mcpServers": {
"weather": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"C:/path/to/your/weather-mcp-server/build/index.js"
]
}
}
}(Stellen Sie sicher, dass Sie den Pfad durch den tatsächlichen absoluten Pfad zu Ihrer erstellten index.js-Datei ersetzen.)
get_weatherRuft das aktuelle Wetter für eine angegebene Stadt ab.
Eingabeparameter:
city (string): Der Name der Stadt (z. B. „Delhi", „Tokio", „London", „San Francisco")
Rückgabe: Temperatur in Celsius, Windgeschwindigkeit und Wettercode.
Dieses Projekt ist unter der MIT-Lizenz lizenziert.
Get current weather for a given city
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City name (e.g., Delhi, Tokyo, London) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but nothing describes the response format, units, error behavior, or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the name itself.
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 that communicates the core operation with zero redundancy. Appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but still incomplete: it fails to hint at what 'current weather' includes (temperature, conditions, etc.), leaving the agent to guess at the return shape. A short list of typical response fields would make it complete.
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 fully describes the single 'city' parameter (100% coverage) with type and examples. The description's 'given city' repeats schema content, adding no new semantic information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with resource 'current weather' and scope 'for a given city'. It unambiguously states the tool's function. With no sibling tools, differentiation is moot.
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 implies usage: when current weather for a city is needed. However, it offers no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative selection guidance, relying entirely on the self-evident purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0get_weatherScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clear and distinct by default.
The tool name follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_weather). With a single tool, there are no naming inconsistencies to evaluate.
One tool feels thin for a weather server, which typically offers multiple data types like forecasts and alerts. However, it is borderline given the narrow 'current weather' scope.
The server only covers current conditions, missing obvious weather domain features such as forecasts, historical data, or alerts. This significantly limits its usefulness for common weather queries.
Global weather via Open-Meteo: forecast, historical, marine, air quality, geocoding, elevation.
Get current weather for any city and create images from your prompts. Streamline planning, reports…
Free, keyless real-time weather and 7-day forecasts for any city worldwide.
Weather MCP — wraps Open-Meteo API (free, no auth)