Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rb209-mcp

rb209-mcp

by charles-gentry
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

rb209_rainfall_winter_rainfall_average

Retrieve average winter rainfall (October–March) for a UK postcode to inform nutrient management planning.

Instructions

GET /api/Rainfall/WinterRainfallAverage/{postcode} — Average rainfall of the field during the winter months (October - March).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "postcode": "<postcode>"
    },
    "name": "rb209_rainfall_winter_rainfall_average"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
postcodeYesFirst half of postcode, eg: AB12

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that this is a GET request and therefore read-only, and it explains what data is returned (average rainfall for winter months). However, with no annotations and no mention of response format, units, or field-specific context, some behavioral details are left unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It includes the HTTP method, endpoint, and semantic outcome efficiently, exactly covering what an agent needs to understand the tool quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter GET endpoint, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not clarify what 'field' refers to, what units the rainfall is in, or the response structure, though these may be less critical given the schema and the tool's simple nature.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single postcode parameter, including an example format. The description only echoes the postcode in the URL path and adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (GET), a specific resource (WinterRainfallAverage/{postcode}), and the outcome (average rainfall during October-March). The explicit mention of winter months distinguishes it from the sibling summer rainfall tool and the general rainfall average tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rb209_rainfall_summer_rainfall_average or rb209_rainfall_average. The usage is only implied by the tool name and the winter month range, not explicitly stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools