Open or create the NWS page tied to a calendar event by providing the event ID and station ID, enabling direct access to event-specific notes and records.
Open (or create) the NWS page linked to a calendar event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| eventId | Yes | ||
| stationId | Yes | ||
| templateSlug | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses a create-if-missing behavior, but does not explain permissions, side effects, idempotency, whether an existing page is reused, or what is returned.
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 one-sentence description is front-loaded and free of filler. It is concise, though its terseness contributes to the tool's overall under-specification.
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?
For an unannotated create/open mutation with four parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It states the basic purpose but omits usage conditions, parameter meaning, side effects, and return behavior.
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 0% for four parameters. The description only indirectly references a calendar event and an NWS page; it does not explain eventId, stationId, title, or templateSlug, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 names a specific action (open/create) and resource (NWS page linked to a calendar event). It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other NWS or calendar page-related tools.
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?
It implies the tool is used when a calendar event needs an associated NWS page, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.