sun_cardCheck today's sunshine hours, sunset time, and time left in the sun for nearby Aare river locations with an interactive sun card.
Show an interactive Aare sun and sunshine card.
Displays total sunshine hours for today, sunset time, and time-left-in-sun for nearby locations.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool is interactive and displays specific data, which implies a read-only card view, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, data source, or how city/language affect the result.
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 with no filler; the main resource is front-loaded and the second sentence adds specific displayed fields. Every sentence earns its place.
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 view tool with no output schema, the description covers the main displayed content, but it omits what 'interactive' means, how 'nearby locations' is determined, and the valid values/effect of the lang parameter. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
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?
The schema already documents 'city' with examples, but 'lang' has no description and schema description coverage is only 50%. The description does not explain either parameter or how 'nearby locations' relates to the city parameter, so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('Aare sun and sunshine card'), and lists the concrete data displayed: sunshine hours, sunset time, and time-left-in-sun. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling like refresh_sun, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as refresh_sun or conditions_dashboard. The description implies a viewing use-case but never states a condition, exclusion, or preferred alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.