Fetch weather alerts for a USA state by two-letter code. Helps agents notify users about hazardous weather conditions.
Get weather alerts for a USA state
Args: state: Two-letter USA state code (e.g. CA, NY)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior beyond the bare purpose. It does not say the operation is read-only, whether alerts are US-national or state-scoped at runtime, freshness/rate limits, or auth needs. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is legitimately omitted, but the behavioral gaps remain.
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?
One short sentence plus a compact Args block; the purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded. The Args formatting is slightly redundant with the schema but not wasteful.
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 a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and the parameter format adequately. What is missing is routing guidance relative to the get_forecast_in_USA sibling and any read-only/safety framing, given zero annotations.
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% (the schema only labels the field 'State'), so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the format as a two-letter USA state code with examples (CA, NY). That is meaningful added meaning beyond the raw schema, though casing/validation rules are unstated.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get weather alerts') scoped to a USA state, which is clear enough to distinguish from the get_forecast_in_USA sibling in practice. It never explicitly names that sibling or clarifies the alerts-vs-forecast distinction, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions or exclusions, and the sibling get_forecast_in_USA is not mentioned. The agent gets no help deciding between alerts and forecast from this description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.