도시 이름을 기반으로 Open-Meteo API를 사용하여 실시간 날씨 예보를 제공하는 표준 Model Context Protocol (MCP) 서버입니다.
지오코딩: 도시 이름을 지리적 좌표(위도 및 경도)로 자동 변환합니다.
실시간 날씨: 현재 기온, 풍속, 날씨 코드를 검색합니다.
MCP 통합: Claude Desktop과 같은 MCP 클라이언트와 완벽하게 호환됩니다.
API 키 불필요: 무료 오픈소스 Open-Meteo API를 사용합니다—회원가입이 필요 없습니다!
Related MCP server: MCP Weather Server
Node.js >= 18.x
npm 또는 yarn
저장소를 클론합니다:
git clone https://github.com/Yaseen-md/weather-mcp-server.git
cd weather-mcp-server의존성을 설치합니다:
npm install서버를 빌드합니다:
npm run build빌드하지 않고 서버를 직접 실행합니다:
npm run dev이 날씨 서버를 Claude Desktop에서 사용하려면 claude_desktop_config.json 파일을 구성해야 합니다.
Mac: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
다음 구성을 추가합니다:
{
"mcpServers": {
"weather": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"C:/path/to/your/weather-mcp-server/build/index.js"
]
}
}
}(경로를 빌드된 index.js 파일의 실제 절대 경로로 바꿔야 합니다.)
get_weather지정된 도시의 현재 날씨를 가져옵니다.
입력 매개변수:
city (string): 도시 이름 (예: "Delhi", "Tokyo", "London", "San Francisco")
반환값: 섭씨 온도, 풍속 및 날씨 코드.
이 프로젝트는 MIT License에 따라 라이선스가 부여됩니다.
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)