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. While it correctly describes the core function, it lacks critical behavioral information: it doesn't specify what weather data is returned (e.g., current conditions, forecast, units), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no space on redundant information. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a weather API tool with 2 parameters, the agent needs more context about what weather information is returned, in what format, with what units, and any limitations or requirements. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to effectively use this tool.

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 mentions '经纬度坐标' (latitude and longitude coordinates), which aligns with the two parameters in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage (both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already documented in the structured fields. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or edge cases.

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: '根据经纬度坐标获取天气信息' (Get weather information based on latitude and longitude coordinates). It specifies both the verb ('获取' - get) and the resource ('天气信息' - weather information), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-weather-by-address' or 'get-current-location-weather', which prevents a perfect 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. With sibling tools like 'get-weather-by-address' and 'get-current-location-weather' available, the agent receives no indication that this tool is specifically for coordinate-based queries rather than address-based or current-location queries. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparative use cases.

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