Get real-time weather conditions for Boston Harbor from nearby CWOP stations to help plan ferry commutes. Choose between Boston Harbor and Winthrop/East Boston data.
Get current weather conditions for Boston Harbor from nearby CWOP station (EW2727)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| station | No | CWOP station callsign (default: EW2727). Options: EW2727 (Boston Harbor), DW3706 (Winthrop/East Boston) | EW2727 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source and that conditions are 'current', but does not explain update latency, what weather fields are returned, units, or failure behavior if the station is unreachable.
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 conveys location, data source, and currency without any filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter, so the description is mostly adequate for selection and invocation. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain what 'weather conditions' includes, which an agent might need to set expectations.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already documents the default and available station options. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('current weather conditions for Boston Harbor'), and a source ('nearby CWOP station EW2727'). It is unmistakably distinct from the ferry-related sibling tools.
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 clear context: this is for current weather conditions at Boston Harbor. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly about ferry tracking, so usage intent is well understood.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.