Get the complete list of National Weather Service alert event types, such as Tornado Warning and Flood Watch, to validate or reference in your applications.
List all valid NWS alert event types (e.g. 'Tornado Warning', 'Flood Watch'). Reference data — cached aggressively.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.9.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it is reference data cached aggressively, which is useful context about performance and freshness. This goes slightly beyond the annotations but does not disclose potential limitations or exact response format. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence that immediately states the purpose, provides examples, and adds a note on caching. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place with zero waste.
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?
For a simple reference-list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (a list of valid alert types), gives examples, and notes caching behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is fully covered (vacuously), and the description adds nothing about parameters because there are none. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate.
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 tool lists all valid NWS alert event types with concrete examples ('Tornado Warning', 'Flood Watch'). It is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like nws_alerts_active or nws_alert, which deal with actual alerts rather than the type vocabulary.
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 labels it 'Reference data' and notes aggressive caching, which implies it is meant for obtaining a canonical list of alert types, likely for validation or filter parameters in other NWS tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention that it provides values for the alert_type parameter elsewhere. Usage guidance is implied but not made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.