weather_cardShow an interactive Aare weather card with current air temperature, precipitation risk, and a 6-day forecast for any Swiss river city.
Show an interactive Aare weather card.
Displays current air temperature, precipitation risk, and a 6-day forecast strip.
| 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 burden of behavior. It discloses that the tool shows an interactive card and what data it renders, but does not clarify what 'interactive' entails or whether it triggers network requests or other side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists since none are provided.
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a single sentence listing the card's key data elements. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.
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-optional-parameter display tool, this is minimally viable: it states what the card shows and implies a read-only interactive widget. However, it lacks guidance on sibling selection, leaves lang semantics undocumented, and does not clarify the interactive behavior.
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 only 50%: city is described in the schema, while lang is not. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the lang parameter remains unexplained by both schema and description.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Show an interactive Aare weather card', and lists the visible content (current air temperature, precipitation risk, 6-day forecast strip). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as forecast_view or temperature_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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_current_temperature, get_forecasts, or forecast_view. The description only states what the card displays, leaving the appropriate selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.