Weather MCP
Mentioned as a prerequisite for setting up the weather service, used for cloning the repository
Used as the source repository for the weather MCP service
Required runtime environment for the weather service, used to execute the MCP server
Used for installing dependencies and building the project
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Weather MCPwhat's the forecast for Seattle this weekend?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Weather MCP π€οΈ
A modern weather service built with MCP (Multi-Cloud Platform) that provides real-time weather data and alerts.
π Features
π‘οΈ Real-time weather forecasts
β οΈ Weather alerts by state
π Location-based weather information
π Easy-to-use API endpoints
Related MCP server: Weather MCP Server
π Getting Started
Prerequisites
Node.js (v18 or higher)
MCP Server
Git
Installation
Clone the repository:
git clone https://github.com/gifflet/weather-mcp.git
cd weather-mcpInstall dependencies and build the project:
npm install && npm run buildπ» Local Development with MCP Server
Configuring MCP Server
Create a
.cursor/mcp.jsonfile in your project directory with the following content:
{
"mcpServers": {
"weather-service": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/ABSOLUTE/PATH/TO/PARENT/FOLDER/weather/build/index.js"],
}
}
}Where /ABSOLUTE/PATH/TO/PARENT/FOLDER/weather/build/index.js is the path to the index.js file in the build folder of the weather-mcp project.
Alternatively, for global configuration, you can create the file at the root of your home directory: .cursor/mcp.json.
Starting the MCP Server
Open the project in Cursor IDE
Go to
Cursor Settings > Features > MCPYour weather service should appear in the list of available MCP servers
If needed, click the refresh button in the top right corner to populate the tool list
Using the Weather Service
After configuring and starting the MCP server in Cursor, you can interact with the weather service using natural language queries. Here are some examples:
Example Queries
"What's the weather in Sacramento?"
"Are there any active weather alerts in Texas?"
"What's the forecast for San Francisco?"
"Show me weather alerts for CA"
Note: Since this service uses the US National Weather Service API, queries will only work for locations within the United States.
Under the Hood
When you make a query:
Your question is sent to the LLM
The LLM analyzes the available tools and decides which one(s) to use
The client executes the chosen tool(s) through the MCP server
The results are sent back to the LLM
A natural language response is formulated and displayed to you
Troubleshooting Common Issues
If the tools are not working as expected:
Verify your server builds and runs without errors
Check that the path in your
.cursor/mcp.jsonis correct and absoluteRestart Cursor IDE if needed
For coordinates outside the US, you'll receive an error as the service only supports US locations
During high traffic, the weather service API might have rate limits
π€ Contributing
Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.
π License
This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.
Available Tools
2 toolsget-alertsC
Get weather alerts for a state
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Two-letter state code (e.g. CA, NY) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex alert data. It doesn't explain what the alerts include, how they're formatted, or any limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'state' parameter. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without needing extra description.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('weather alerts for a state'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get-forecast', which likely provides different weather data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'get-forecast' or any alternatives. It lacks context about usage scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, offering only a basic statement of function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-forecastC
Get weather forecast for a location
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Latitude of the location | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude of the location |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the response format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about behavioral aspects, response format, or how this tool differs from its sibling. For a tool with this level of complexity and lack of structured data, the description should do more to compensate.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (latitude and longitude) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('weather forecast for a location'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-alerts', which likely provides different weather-related information, so it doesn't achieve the highest score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'get-alerts' or explain the difference between getting a forecast versus alerts, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
- First observed
get-alerts - First observed
get-forecast
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves weather alerts for states, while the other provides forecasts for locations. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on the need.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get-' prefix and hyphenated names (get-alerts, get-forecast). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a weather domain. Key operations like getting current conditions, historical data, or radar imagery are missing, making the set too thin for comprehensive weather-related tasks.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a weather server. It lacks basic operations such as current weather, historical data, or severe weather details, creating significant gaps that will hinder agents in performing common weather-related workflows.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Provide real-time and forecast weather information for locations in the United States using naturaβ¦
US weather & geo for AI agents: forecasts, alerts, earthquakes, elevation, geocoding. No keys.
US weather & geo for AI agents: forecasts, alerts, earthquakes, elevation, geocoding. No keys.
Current weather and forecasts for any coordinates, backed bβ¦ β paid per call (x402/credits), 1 tools
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA simple MCP service that allows users to query weather conditions for cities worldwide through the Cursor AI assistant.1-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables users to fetch weather forecasts through Cursor AI by using natural language queries.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables users to get weather forecasts and alerts for any US city and state through natural language queries using the National Weather Service API.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides weather forecasts and alerts for US locations via the National Weather Service API, enabling AI assistants to deliver real-time weather information.8 npm-