Fetch active Finnish Meteorological Institute CAP 1.2 warnings for severe weather, marine, wave, wind, and traffic hazards across Finland and the Baltic Sea.
Fetch active Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) CAP 1.2 severe weather, marine, wave, wind, and traffic warnings across Finland and the Baltic Sea (CC BY 4.0).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | en-GB | |
| maxAlerts | No | ||
| minSeverity | No | Minor | |
| regionFilter | No | ||
| includeCancelled | No |
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 full burden; it does add useful context by naming the upstream source (FMI), the payload standard (CAP 1.2), the licence (CC BY 4.0), and the coverage area. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, refresh cadence, pagination, or what the response looks like, leaving real gaps for a live-data tool.
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?
A single tightly packed sentence with the resource and coverage front-loaded and the licence tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though it is dense enough that the parameter hints are absent entirely.
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 tool with five parameters, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description only covers what the data is. An agent still cannot tell how to filter by region, what includeCancelled or minSeverity do in practice, or what the return payload contains.
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% and the description never mentions any of the five parameters; regionFilter in particular is a free-form string with an empty default and no explanation of expected format. Enum'd language and minSeverity plus the bounded maxAlerts are partially self-documenting in the schema, but the description adds no meaning beyond that.
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?
Names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (active FMI CAP 1.2 warnings), and enumerates hazard types and geographic scope (Finland and Baltic Sea). It clearly separates itself from siblings like fmi_station_weather or fmi_weather_observations by being warning-focused, though it never explicitly names an alternative.
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 word "active" implies this is for current in-force warnings rather than historical observations, which implicitly signals when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling fmi_alerts_licence_info or fmi_fingrid_nowcast as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.