Retrieve official Turkish MGM current weather observations and 5-day forecasts for selected provinces.
Retrieve official Turkish State Meteorological Service (MGM) current weather observations and 5-day forecasts across 81 provinces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provinces | No | List of Turkish provinces (e.g., istanbul, ankara, izmir, antalya). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the data scope. It does not state that the operation is a read-only fetch, whether province names are matched case-insensitively or must be exact, how unknown provinces are handled, rate limits, or what the observation and forecast payloads contain. 'Official' signals provenance but not 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?
One sentence that front-loads the source, the verb, and the two data products returned. There is no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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, no-output-schema tool this is close to adequate: the agent knows what data comes back and for which geography. However, with no annotations and no output schema, gaps remain around default behavior when provinces is omitted, data freshness/units, and return shape that the description could reasonably cover.
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 single optional parameter already documents the province list with examples and defaults, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'across 81 provinces' confirms the accepted universe of values but adds no syntax, matching rules, or behavior for omitted or invalid entries.
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 names a specific verb (retrieve) and a clearly bounded resource: MGM current observations plus 5-day forecasts for Turkish provinces. The authoritative source and geographic scope (81 provinces) leave no ambiguity about what the tool returns. It does not need to differentiate from siblings since none of the listed tools cover weather, but it also does no explicit routing.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for Turkish weather lookups. There is no statement of when to prefer it over another source, no prerequisites, and no note that the call defaults to Istanbul/Ankara/Izmir when provinces is omitted. An agent must infer the calling context entirely from the tool name and scope sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.