Skip to main content
Glama

Get Station Info

get_station_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve AMeDAS station information by station code to identify weather observation locations and support JMA data queries across Japan.

Instructions

Get AMeDAS station information by station code.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "get_station_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesStation code (e.g., '44132' for Tokyo)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Added value: +"Station code (e.g., '44132' for Tokyo)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as error behavior for unknown station codes, but with annotations doing the heavy lifting this remains adequate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the action, domain, and lookup key immediately.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple single-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. The only meaningful omission is explicit routing guidance against sibling search/list tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides a clear example ('44132' for Tokyo). The description reinforces that the input is an AMeDAS station code, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('AMeDAS station information') and names the lookup key ('by station code'). This makes the core action clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_stations or list_stations.

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?

The phrase 'by station code' implies the tool should be used when a station code is already known, but the description never states when to choose this over search_stations, list_stations, or get_stations_of_type. Guidance is present only by implication.

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