Retrieve a weather forecast for any USA location using latitude and longitude, so agents can answer location-specific weather questions.
Get weather forecast for a location in USA.
Args: latitude: Latitude of the location longitude: Longitude of the location
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | ||
| longitude | 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but does not state whether the tool requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns any particular forecast format, despite an output schema existing.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the input schema, but it does not obscure the main statement and remains easy to scan.
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 simple two-parameter weather forecast tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but leaves gaps in usage guidance and parameter semantics. It is minimally viable, though an agent must infer coordinate conventions and when to prefer this tool over the sibling alerts tool.
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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It only repeats the parameter names with 'Latitude of the location' and 'Longitude of the location', adding no format, range, or coordinate-system details beyond the schema's titles and types.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get weather forecast for a location in USA.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_alerts_in_USA, which likely returns weather alerts rather than forecasts. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling tool.
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 get_alerts_in_USA, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and basic purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.