Skip to main content
Glama
juhemcp

Juhe Weather MCP Server

Official
by juhemcp

query_weather

Retrieve real-time weather forecasts for cities, regions, and counties across China by providing the location name. Enables accurate weather updates for specific areas.

Instructions

根据城市、地区、区县名称查询当地实时天气预报情况

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYes查询的城市名称,如北京、上海、广州、深圳、泰顺等;城市或区县或地区名使用简写,严格按照规范填写,否则会导致查询失败

Implementation Reference

  • Full implementation of the query_weather tool, including decorator registration, input schema, and execution logic using JUHE Weather API.
    @mcp.tool(name="query_weather", description="根据城市、地区、区县名称查询当地实时天气预报情况")
    async def query_weather(
        city: str = Field(description="查询的城市名称,如北京、上海、广州、深圳、泰顺等;城市或区县或地区名使用简写,严格按照规范填写,否则会导致查询失败")
    ) -> list[types.TextContent | types.ImageContent | types.EmbeddedResource]:
        """根据城市、地区、区县名称查询当地实时天气预报情况"""
        url = f"{JUHE_WEATHER_API_BASE}/query"
        params = {
            "city": city,
            "key": JUHE_WEATHER_API_KEY
        }
        async with httpx.AsyncClient() as client:
            response = await client.post(url, params=params)
            data = response.json()
            if data["error_code"] == 0:
                result = data["result"]
                return [
                    types.TextContent(
                        type="text",
                        text=f"{result}"
                    )
                ]
            else:
                return [
                    types.TextContent(
                        type="text",
                        text=f"Error: {data['reason']}"
                    )
                ]
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '实时' (real-time) which indicates freshness of data, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens when invalid city names are provided. The description is insufficient for a mutation-free query tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient Chinese sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool with one parameter. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information the weather forecast includes (temperature, precipitation, etc.), the format of returned data, or any limitations. The agent would need to guess about the response structure and content.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'city' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that queries are based on city/region/county names. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: querying real-time weather forecasts based on city/region/county names. It specifies the verb ('查询' - query) and resource ('天气预报情况' - weather forecast situation). However, with no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with other weather-related tools. The absence of sibling tools doesn't excuse the lack of usage context for the agent.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

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/juhemcp/jweather-mcp-server'

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