get_tafRetrieve terminal aerodrome forecasts (TAFs) for up to 20 airports to plan for future weather conditions. Use for forecasts, not current observations.
Terminal aerodrome forecasts (TAFs) for one or more airports. Forecasts, not observations — use get_metar for what the weather is doing right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stations | Yes | ICAO station identifiers. Max 20. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core distinction (forecasts not observations). However, it omits other behavioral traits such as rate limits, data recency, or failure modes, which is acceptable but not rich context.
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 short sentences with zero waste, and the key distinction (forecast vs observation) is front-loaded in the second sentence after the resource name.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers what it returns and how it differs from get_metar. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could add minor context about data output format.
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%, so the schema already documents the stations parameter (ICAO identifiers, max 20). The description adds no additional syntax or format details beyond confirming the plural-airports scope, which the schema already implies.
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 (get) and resource (terminal aerodrome forecasts), and explicitly disambiguates from the sibling get_metar by contrasting forecasts vs observations. An agent can distinguish this tool from get_metar without opening either schema.
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 explicitly names the alternative tool (get_metar) and the condition that selects it ('use get_metar for what the weather is doing right now'), giving clear when-to-use guidance rather than leaving the choice implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.