Retrieve current weather and a short forecast for any latitude and longitude, with optional forecast days from 1 to 16.
Current weather plus a short forecast for any latitude/longitude.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of forecast days, 1 to 16 (clamped to range). | |
| latitude | Yes | Latitude, -90 to 90. | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude, -180 to 180. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the response contains current conditions plus a short forecast, which is useful but thin given an output schema is present.
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?
A single compact sentence with the resource stated first and no filler. Nothing is wasted and it is fully front-loaded.
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?
With rich annotations, a complete input schema and an output schema, the description only needs to state what the tool returns and its coordinate scope, which it does. The remaining gap is routing guidance between this and the several UAE-specific weather siblings.
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 description coverage is 100% with clear lat/long bounds and the 'days' range documented in the schema. The description adds no coordinate format, units, or default-day detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Current weather') plus a scope qualifier ('any latitude/longitude') and mentions a forecast component. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the UAE-specific siblings (uae_weather, weather_uae_icao), but never names an alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The phrase 'any latitude/longitude' implies this is the generic/global coordinate-based option versus the UAE-only weather tools, but the agent must infer that routing decision without confirmation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.