flow_cardDisplay an interactive card showing Aare water flow and safety level, including BAFU assessment and color-coded flow zones.
Show an interactive Aare flow and safety level card.
Displays water flow in m³/s with BAFU safety level assessment and color-coded flow zones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City identifier (e.g. 'Bern', 'Thun', 'Olten') | Bern |
| lang | No | de |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.9.0Input schema / properties / langAdded value: +{
+ "default": "de",
+ "type": "string"
+}v4.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate the card is interactive and describes its displayed content, implying a read-only presentation tool. However, it does not disclose side effects, data freshness, language behavior, or behavior for invalid city values.
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 two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding concrete detail. There is slight redundancy between 'Show an interactive... card' and 'Displays...', but no filler or unnecessary content.
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 card with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the displayed content well. However, it omits how city and lang influence the result and gives no usage context relative to the many sibling view and refresh tools, leaving some inference to the agent.
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 50%: city is documented with examples and a default, but lang has no description. The tool description does not mention either parameter or explain how city and lang affect the card, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema and does not compensate for the undocumented lang parameter.
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 shows an interactive Aare flow and safety level card, and then specifies the exact content: flow in m³/s, BAFU safety assessment, and color-coded zones. This distinguishes it from data-retrieval siblings like get_flow_danger_level, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 guidance is given for when to use flow_card versus sibling tools such as aare_map, get_flow_danger_level, conditions_dashboard, or other card views. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.