temperature_cardDisplays current Aare water temperature in a card with 2-hour forecast and Swiss German description. Select a city to view conditions.
Show an interactive Aare water temperature card.
Displays the current water temperature in the signature Aare cyan card with 2-hour forecast trend and Swiss German description.
| 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 full burden. 'Show an interactive card' implies a non-mutating display operation and it does describe the card's contents, but it does not disclose return format, data-fetch behavior, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied, not stated.
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 sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds precise content details. It is appropriately concise.
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 tool with two optional parameters, the description is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema it does not explain what the agent receives (e.g., rendered HTML, card data). It also leaves lang customization underspecified despite mentioning the Swiss German description.
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 coverage is 50% because city has a description but lang does not. The description adds the 'Swiss German description' detail, which weakly informs the lang parameter, but it does not explain accepted lang values or city scope beyond the mention of Aare. Moderate value added 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show an interactive Aare water temperature card' and lists the content (current temperature, 2-hour forecast trend, Swiss German description). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_current_temperature, forecast_view, or weather_card.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_current_temperature or forecast_view. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or context cues beyond the generic 'Show a card' framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.