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. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to interact with the tool 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 core purpose in the first sentence. The additional parameter details are concise and relevant, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more integrated. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but other gaps remain.

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 meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that latitude and longitude are for a 'location,' which clarifies the context of the parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, this compensation is valuable, though it doesn't detail formats or constraints. Since there are no parameters beyond the two required, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 current weather for a location.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current weather'), but since there are no sibling tools, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and not tautological.

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, prerequisites, or context. It simply states what the tool does without any usage instructions or exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools, this is less critical, but still a gap in guidance.

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