Fetch daily weather forecasts for any location, up to 16 days, from Open-Meteo; defaults to 3 days.
Get the daily weather forecast for a place from Open-Meteo. Args: location (str), days (int 1-16, default 3).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| location | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source, daily granularity, and the days range/default, but omits permissions, rate limits, units, timezone handling, and read-only behavior. For a simple read-only tool with an output schema, this is adequate but incomplete.
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?
Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and parameters listed second. There is no filler, and every sentence 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 and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the critical location format is unspecified, and with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the useful 1-16 range for days and confirms parameter types, but it does not explain the expected format for location or any units/format details for the forecast.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daily weather forecast') plus the source Open-Meteo. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling weather_code_meaning tool.
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?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus weather_code_meaning or any alternative. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get' and the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.