Select a city in Israel to retrieve its live weather forecast data.
Select the first autocomplete result (or press Enter) and wait for forecast page to load.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
The description mentions that the tool waits for the forecast page to load, which is a behavioral detail. However, since there are no annotations to provide safety or side-effect information, the description carries more responsibility, and it does not cover potential errors, timeouts, or other side effects.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and the waiting behavior. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 an output schema exists (though not fully shown), the description need not elaborate on return values. It adequately covers the tool's action and expected outcome (waiting for page load), but it could be slightly more explicit about its role in the overall workflow with the sibling tools.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100% and the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed.
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 action of selecting the first autocomplete result and waiting for the forecast page to load, making it distinct from siblings that open, search, or extract data. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or contrast with them, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 implies a sequential step after entering a search query but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives (open, enter, extract). It gives no direct guidance on workflow order or conditions, so it falls short of clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.