Skip to main content
Glama
jspsmart

mcp-weather

by jspsmart
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

mcp-weather、mcp-flomo for MCP Server

A Model Context Protocol server

2025-02-22 · 今天完成了第一个 MCP 服务器的开发，将写笔记能力接入了 flomo。 2025-03-09 · 本地ollama + ChatBox +mcp 实现了查询天气情况，并将结果成功返回ChatBox显示。

This is a TypeScript-based MCP server that implements a simple notes system. It demonstrates core MCP concepts by providing:

  • Resources representing text notes with URIs and metadata

  • Tools for creating new notes

  • Prompts for generating summaries of notes

Features

Resources

  • List and access notes via note:// URIs

  • Each note has a title, content and metadata

  • Plain text mime type for simple content access

Tools

  • create_note - Create new text notes

    • Takes title and content as required parameters

    • Stores note in server state

Prompts

  • summarize_notes - Generate a summary of all stored notes

    • Includes all note contents as embedded resources

    • Returns structured prompt for LLM summarization

Related MCP server: nuclei-server MCP Server

Development

Install dependencies:

npm install

Build the server:

npm run build

For development with auto-rebuild:

npm run watch

Installation

To use with Claude Desktop, add the server config:

On MacOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json On Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "test-mcp": {
      "command": "/path/to/test-mcp/build/index.js"
    }
  }
}

Debugging

Since MCP servers communicate over stdio, debugging can be challenging. We recommend using the MCP Inspector, which is available as a package script:

npm run inspector

The Inspector will provide a URL to access debugging tools in your browser.

Available Tools

2 tools
query_weatherC

Query the weather

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYesThe City of the weather query

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
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 fails to confirm whether this is idempotent, what happens when a city is unknown, data freshness/staleness, or whether it requires external API availability. The term 'Query' implies read-only but lacks explicit confirmation.

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 a single short sentence with no structural waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It front-loads the action but lacks the substantive details required to make the sentence 'earn its place'.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits what constitutes 'weather' data (temperature, humidity, wind), expected response structure, and error handling scenarios, leaving critical gaps for an agent attempting to use the tool effectively.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'city' parameter. The description adds no semantic details (e.g., examples like 'London, UK', format expectations, or disambiguation for duplicate city names), meriting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Query the weather' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'query_weather'. It fails to specify what weather data is returned (current conditions, forecast, alerts) or the scope of coverage, though it implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'write_note' by suggesting a read operation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (such as needing specific city name formats), or error conditions (e.g., city not found). The description offers no 'when-not-to-use' boundaries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

write_noteC

Write a new note

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesText content of the note

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
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 but fails significantly. It does not explain persistence characteristics, storage location, whether the operation is idempotent, potential error conditions, or what constitutes a 'note' in this system.

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?

At three words, the description is extremely brief, but this borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place by providing actionable context beyond the tool name itself.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite low parameter complexity (1 param) and good schema coverage, the description is inadequate for a write operation with no annotations and no output schema. It omits critical context about where notes are stored, retrieval mechanisms, and success/failure indicators.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the 'content' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but per scoring guidelines, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and the description does not need to compensate for coverage gaps.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Write a new note' essentially restates the tool name 'write_note' with minimal elaboration. While it correctly identifies the action and resource, it is tautological and fails to distinguish scope or behavior beyond the obvious.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for writing notes, or relationships to other operations (e.g., reading or deleting notes). The agent receives no context about the note lifecycle.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have completely distinct purposes: query_weather deals with weather data retrieval, while write_note handles note creation. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these unrelated functions, making misselection highly unlikely.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (query_weather, write_note), which is good. However, the server name 'mcp-weather' suggests a weather-focused domain, making write_note an outlier that breaks thematic consistency, though the naming style itself is uniform.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the set feels too thin for the implied scope. The server name indicates a weather domain, but write_note is unrelated, leaving weather functionality underdeveloped (e.g., no forecast, alerts, or location-based queries). This minimal count does not adequately cover the expected domain.

Completeness1/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete. For a weather server, basic operations like getting forecasts, historical data, or location searches are missing, and write_note is irrelevant to the domain. This creates significant gaps that will cause agent failures in weather-related tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jspsmart/mcp-weather'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server