refresh_conditionsFetch updated Aare river swimming conditions for a selected city, including water temperature, flow rates, and safety assessments, to support current decisions.
Refresh current conditions for a city (called from UI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.9.0Does 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 only mentions 'refresh' and 'called from UI,' without explaining whether this mutates state, re-fetches data, invalidates a cache, or requires special permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb and target come first, and the UI qualifier is a brief parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.
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 low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema present), the description plus schema is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. The main missing pieces are side-effect transparency and explicit sibling routing, but those are already penalized in other dimensions.
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 needed to compensate, but it merely restates the city parameter. The singular required string 'city' is self-descriptive, yet no format, example, or further constraint is provided, and the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already exposes.
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 ('Refresh'), resource ('current conditions'), and target ('a city'), and adds the UI-context qualifier. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_current_conditions or from refresh_temperature/refresh_forecast by naming them.
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?
'Called from UI' implies this is an internal refresher rather than a general fetch tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives. The guidance is mostly implied, not direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.