Минималистичный Python MCP-сервер с одним инструментом: get_surf_forecast.
Он получает данные из обоих эндпоинтов прогноза Surfline:
conditions
rating
Спот фиксируется через переменную окружения (SURFLINE_SPOT_ID), поэтому этот сервер фактически предназначен для одного спота.
cd surfline-mcp
uv syncRelated MCP server: Kitesurf Forecast MCP
cd surfline-mcp
export SURFLINE_SPOT_ID=5842041f4e65fad6a7708852
uv run surfline-mcpexport SURFLINE_SPOT_ID=5842041f4e65fad6a7708852
uvx --from git+https://github.com/ivoytov/surfline-mcp surfline-mcp{
"tools": {
"mcpServers": {
"surfline": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--from", "git+https://github.com/ivoytov/surfline-mcp", "surfline-mcp"],
"env": {
"SURFLINE_SPOT_ID": "5842041f4e65fad6a7708852"
}
}
}
}
}get_surf_forecast(days=3)
Возвращает:
spot_id
days
daily_forecast[] с полями:
forecastDay
dayToWatch
headline
observation
rating_summary.dominant_key
rating_summary.min_value
rating_summary.max_value
rating_summary.avg_value
rating_windows[] в виде компактных 3-часовых снимков:
local_hour
key
value
Fetch Surfline forecast data for one configured spot.
Uses SURFLINE_SPOT_ID from environment and returns both
conditions and rating endpoint payloads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions fetching data and using environment variables, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or data freshness. This is inadequate for a tool with no 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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that convey key information efficiently. There's no wasted text, and it's structured to highlight the main action and data sources, though it could be slightly more polished.
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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and one parameter, it lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavior. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in context.
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 does not mention the 'days' parameter at all. It fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the parameter undocumented in both places. This is a significant gap given the low coverage.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('Surfline forecast data for one configured spot'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the scope is for 'one configured spot' using environment variables, which provides context. However, without sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed, 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 mentions using 'SURFLINE_SPOT_ID from environment,' which implies a prerequisite but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool or provide alternatives. No guidance is given on scenarios, limitations, or comparisons to other tools, leaving usage context minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0get_surf_forecastScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.
The single tool name 'get_surf_forecast' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. With only one tool, consistency is inherently perfect as there are no other tools to compare against.
A single tool is too few for a surf forecast server's apparent scope, which typically involves multiple operations like listing spots, getting forecasts for different locations, or accessing different data types. This minimal set limits functionality.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a surf forecasting domain. It only fetches forecast data for one pre-configured spot, lacking operations to list spots, get forecasts for multiple locations, or access other surf-related data like tides or reports.
Hosted MCP server for Xweather weather data: conditions, forecasts, alerts, and more.
MCP server for querying Forkast documentation
