Weather MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the forecast includes (e.g., temperature, precipitation). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear 'Args:' section. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for optimal agent decision-making despite the output schema handling return values.

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 explicitly lists and describes the two parameters (latitude and longitude), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide details like valid ranges, coordinate systems, or examples, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('weather forecast for a location'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_alerts', which might also relate to weather data, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 its sibling 'get_alerts' or any alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the location must be valid or if there are any usage limits, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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