Fetch live synoptic weather observations for Finnish cities, including temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, snow depth, and pressure, to check current conditions.
Fetch live synoptic weather station observations (temperature, wind speed, gusts, humidity, precipitation, snow depth, pressure) for Finnish cities (CC BY 4.0).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| places | No | ||
| hoursBack | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'live' data and a CC BY 4.0 license, but omits important details such as whether the operation is read-only, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though the parenthetical list of variables makes it slightly dense.
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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description should explain the parameters and basic behavior. Instead, it omits any parameter semantics and does not describe return format or constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.
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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It hints that 'places' refers to Finnish cities, but gives no explanation of the 'hoursBack' parameter or its valid range (1–24 hours), leaving both parameters largely unclear.
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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('live synoptic weather station observations') and lists the measured variables, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from the sibling 'fmi_station_weather', which likely serves a similar role.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.