Weather MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.