Skip to main content
Glama
robobobby

mcp-swedish-weather

by robobobby
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides current weather data, while the other provides forecast data. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, as each targets a specific temporal aspect of weather information.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern with a descriptive adjective_noun structure (current_weather, weather_forecast). The naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy to understand their functions at a glance.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a weather domain that typically requires more comprehensive coverage, such as historical data, alerts, or location search. While the tools cover current and forecast data, the scope is limited and may not support complex agent workflows effectively.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is significantly incomplete for a weather server, lacking essential operations like historical weather data, location search/autocomplete, weather alerts, or multi-day forecasts. This creates gaps that could lead to agent failures when handling broader weather-related queries.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the data source (SMHI) and geographic scope (Sweden), but doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, authentication needs, or what the response format looks like. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a single-parameter read tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basic context (what it does, geographic scope, data source). However, it lacks important behavioral details like response format, error handling, or usage guidance relative to the sibling tool, leaving room for improvement.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'location' parameter fully documented as 'Swedish city name or lat,lon coordinates'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('Get current weather') and resource ('for a location in Sweden using SMHI'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'weather_forecast' tool, which prevents a perfect score, but the 'current' vs 'forecast' distinction is implied.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 the sibling 'weather_forecast' tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints beyond the location requirement. The agent must infer usage context from the tool names alone.

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

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the data source (SMHI) and geographic limitation (Sweden), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the essential information with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a relatively simple weather forecast tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about scope and data source. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning what the forecast data includes (temperature, precipitation, etc.) or the response format.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the specific action ('Get'), resource ('hourly weather forecast'), and scope ('for a location in Sweden using SMHI'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'current_weather' by specifying it provides forecast data rather than current conditions.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (for hourly forecasts in Sweden via SMHI), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied sibling tool. The geographic and data source constraints are helpful guidance.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-swedish-weather MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-swedish-weather MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/robobobby/mcp-swedish-weather'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server