Skip to main content
Glama

willyweather_forecast

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve forecasts for an Australian location using a location ID, with optional forecast days and API key. Use it to check upcoming conditions for a specified area.

Instructions

Get weather forecast from WillyWeather for an Australian location.

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": {
      "location_id": "<location_id>"
    },
    "name": "willyweather_forecast"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo
api_keyNo
location_idYesWillyWeather location ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 covered. The description adds provider and Australian-scope context, but does not mention API-key requirements, rate limits, forecast horizon, default days, units, or return behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse given the three-parameter schema and low description coverage.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with three parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain the days parameter, API-key handling, units, or what the forecast response contains. An agent can identify the tool's purpose but lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with just location_id documented as 'WillyWeather location ID'. The description reinforces that the location is Australian, but it does not clarify the 'days' parameter (range, default, forecast horizon) or the 'api_key' parameter (whether required, optional, or where to obtain it).

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 and resource ('Get weather forecast') and identifies the provider and geographic scope ('WillyWeather for an Australian location'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as willyweather_surf, willyweather_tide, or the generic weather_forecast.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as an API key, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the implied Australian-location scope, which is minimal.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools