OpenWeatherMap 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 data is retrieved but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness (real-time vs. cached), error conditions, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence: 'Get air quality index and pollution data'. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without 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 complexity of environmental data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like data sources, temporal scope (current vs. historical), units of measurement, or how results are structured. For a tool with no structured output information, more descriptive context is needed.

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 100%, with both parameters ('latitude' and 'longitude') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain coordinate systems, precision requirements, or geographic scope). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Get air quality index and pollution data' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('air quality index and pollution data'). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get-current-air-pollution', which appears to serve a very similar purpose, making differentiation unclear.

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. With sibling tools like 'get-current-air-pollution' and 'get-current-weather' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for historical data, specific timeframes, or how it differs from other pollution/weather tools. Usage context is implied at best.

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