Retrieve weather forecasts for any Japanese prefecture. Provide the prefecture name (e.g., tokyo, osaka) to receive forecast data from the Japan Meteorological Agency.
Get weather forecast for a prefecture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefecture | Yes | Prefecture name in English (e.g., 'tokyo', 'osaka', 'hokkaido_sapporo') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / prefecture / descriptionAdded value: +"Prefecture name in English (e.g., 'tokyo', 'osaka', 'hokkaido_sapporo')"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation without mentioning any side effects, authentication needs, or data freshness. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving agent uncertain about what is returned.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative while remaining concise, so it scores 4 rather than 5.
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 only one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks detail about the forecast's contents or response format, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for full explanation in the description.
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 coverage is 100% and the input schema already describes the 'prefecture' parameter with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'weather forecast', and the scope 'for a prefecture'. It is specific enough to convey the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_weather' or 'get_historical_weather' which also deal with weather data.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.