Skip to main content
Glama
joescaos

Weather MCP Server

by joescaos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Weather MCP Server Powered by the Open-Meteo API

This MCP server interfaces with the Open-Meteo API and offers tools to fetch current weather conditions and weather forecasts for any location worldwide.

Requirements

  • Claude.ai account (MCP support is available for all account types)

  • Claude Desktop app, available for macOS and Windows

  • uv:

    • macOS via Homebrew: brew install uv

    • Windows via WinGet: winget install --id=astral-sh.uv -e

  • A code editor like Visual Studio Code

Related MCP server: Weather MCP Server

Installation

uv run

Development

Start the virtual environment

source .venv/bin/activate

NOTE: To stop the virtual environment:

deactivate

Run MCP server in dev mode with the MCP Inspector:

mcp dev server.py

Run MCP server in Claude Desktop

Open claude_desktop_config.json in an editor:

File location:

  • MacOS / Linux: ~/Library/Application/Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

  • Windows: AppData\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

Find the full path to uv:

  • MacOS / Linux: which uv

  • Windows: where uv

In claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "weather": {
      "command": "/absolute/path/to/uv",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "--with",
        "mcp[cli]",
        "mcp",
        "run",
        "/absolute/path/to/mcp-server-weather/server.py"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Reboot Claude Desktop and use a prompt that will trigger your MCP.

Usage

In Claude Desktop:

  • request current weather information for a specified location

  • request a weather forecast for a specified location and time

  • ask if it's going to rain tomorrow

  • ask if you need to put on sunscreen if you're going for a walk later

Available Tools

2 tools
get_current_weatherB

Get current weather for a location.

Args:
    latitude: Latitude of the location
    longitude: Longitude of the location
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latitudeYes
longitudeYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief but includes a redundant 'Args' section that repeats schema information. It is somewhat concise but could be more streamlined.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema indicated, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a two-parameter tool, it lacks completeness by not providing details on coordinate systems or units.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only restates parameter names without adding any meaning about formats, ranges, or units. The 'Args' section adds no value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get current weather for a location' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_forecast' by explicitly targeting current weather.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for current weather, but does not mention when not to use or provide alternative scenarios.

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.

Args:
    latitude: Latitude of the location
    longitude: Longitude of the location
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latitudeYes
longitudeYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 doesn't disclose how many days of forecast are returned, data freshness, caching behavior, rate limits, or what units (Celsius/Fahrenheit) are used. The description only restates the parameters without adding behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The Args section is mostly unnecessary given the input schema repeats the same parameter names and types. The single opening sentence is useful, but the parameter documentation is redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is an output schema present, which helps, but the description still fails to communicate what the forecast contains or how comprehensive it is. For a tool that returns weather data, the agent has no sense of forecast length, granularity, or data fields without inspecting the output schema. The description is minimally sufficient for a basic 2-param lookup tool but leaves key context undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. The description merely restates that latitude/longitude are coordinates of the location, which adds marginal value over the schema. It doesn't explain valid ranges (e.g., -90 to 90, -180 to 180), precision requirements, or format expectations. Minimal semantic addition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get weather forecast for a location' with a clear verb+resource. It doesn't distinguish from its sibling tool get_alerts, and 'forecast' vs 'alerts' distinction is implied but not explicit. The purpose is clear but missing scope details (time range, units).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs get_alerts. The description doesn't explain the distinction between getting a forecast and getting alerts, nor does it mention any special circumstances (e.g., use get_alerts for severe weather warnings). No when/when-not guidance is provided.

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.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedget_current_weather
    • First observedget_forecast
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Both tools target distinct weather data: current conditions vs. forecast. No overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow the consistent 'get_<type>_weather' naming pattern.

Tool Count3/5

Only 2 tools for a weather server is minimal but covers the core functionality; could be expanded.

Completeness3/5

Current and forecast cover basic needs but lack alerts, historical data, or location metadata.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers