dwd-mcp

dwd_health

Probes DWD weather sources to verify current reachability and returns status, HTTP code, and probed URL without fetching listings.

Instructions

Check whether the DWD weather sources are reachable right now.

Returns status ok (HTTP 200), blocked (HTTP 403/429 — bot wall or rate limit) or error, plus the HTTP status and the probed URL. One polite request; it does not fetch any listings.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dwd_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cost profile ('one polite request'), the status vocabulary it returns (ok/blocked/error) with the HTTP codes behind each, and the reason for 'blocked' (bot wall or rate limit). It does not say whether any auth or configuration is needed, which is the main remaining gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact enumeration of return states, then the scoping caveat. Every sentence adds information; nothing is padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-arg health probe with an output schema, this is nearly complete — the return shape needn't be explained and the safety/cost profile is stated. Slightly short of full marks because it offers no guidance on what an agent should do when it gets 'blocked', which is the one decision this tool is likely to trigger.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description's note that it makes one request and probes a URL adds useful framing about what the implicit probe target is.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('DWD weather sources are reachable right now'), then immediately disambiguates from the data-fetching siblings by stating 'it does not fetch any listings.' An agent can tell this is a connectivity probe, not a data call, without opening anything.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clear context for when to call it (verify sources are reachable right now) and an explicit exclusion ('does not fetch any listings') that steers agents away from using it to get data. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead for actual listings, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server