Skip to main content
Glama
muminfarooq190

Weather MCP Server

by muminfarooq190
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_alerts retrieves weather alerts for US states, while get_forecast provides forecasts for geographic coordinates. There is no overlap in functionality or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_alerts, get_forecast) with the same verb 'get' and descriptive nouns. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a weather domain. It lacks basic operations like current conditions, historical data, or location search, making it incomplete for typical weather-related tasks.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a weather server. It misses core functionalities such as current weather, radar data, air quality, or unit conversions, leaving significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the forecast includes (e.g., temperature, precipitation). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

    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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are clear and necessary. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but it remains efficient with minimal waste.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given that there is an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and a simple tool (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description covers the basics but lacks depth in behavioral aspects and usage context, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, only providing titles and types. The description explicitly lists and explains the parameters ('latitude: Latitude of the location', 'longitude: Longitude of the location'), compensating fully for the schema's lack of semantic information.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get weather forecast for a location.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('weather forecast'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_alerts', which might also be weather-related.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get_alerts' or any other context for choosing between them. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves alerts but doesn't describe what the alerts contain, their format, whether the data is real-time or historical, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    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?

    The description is efficiently structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section with parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

    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?

    Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., data freshness, error handling) and usage guidelines relative to siblings prevents a perfect score.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'state' is a 'Two-letter US state code' and provides examples ('e.g. CA, NY'), clarifying the parameter's format and expected values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, making the parameter semantics clear.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get weather alerts for a US state.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('weather alerts'), and geographic scope ('US state'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_forecast' (which presumably provides forecasts rather than alerts), preventing a perfect score.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_forecast'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for choosing between siblings. The only implicit usage hint is the geographic limitation to US states, but this is part of the purpose rather than comparative guidance.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Weather MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Weather MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/muminfarooq190/Weather'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server