Find NOAA weather stations by location ID or dataset to retrieve monitoring data for a specific area.
Search for NOAA weather stations by location or dataset. Use location IDs like FIPS:36 (New York), FIPS:06 (California), CITY:US360019 (NYC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 25) | |
| dataset_id | No | e.g. 'GHCND', 'GSOM' | |
| location_id | No | e.g. 'FIPS:36' (NY), 'FIPS:06' (CA) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.9.14Input schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +25v2026.4.11Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2026.3.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds the scoping constraint that results are filtered by location or dataset, plus useful location ID format examples, but does not disclose return shape, pagination, or default behavior beyond what annotations cover.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence gives practical examples that directly help an agent choose inputs.
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 small optional parameter set and strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify what station fields will be returned or how location_id and dataset_id interact when both are supplied, leaving some ambiguity for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema already covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete location_id examples ('FIPS:36', 'FIPS:06', 'CITY:US360019') and clarifying the intended filtering dimensions, going slightly beyond the schema's generic examples.
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 states a clear action ('Search') and resource ('NOAA weather stations'), with the filter dimensions 'by location or dataset.' It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like noaa_locations or noaa_datasets, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No usage guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of related NOAA/NWS station tools. The examples imply that location IDs are valid inputs, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.