purdue-mcp

Purdue campus weather

campus_weather

Retrieve current weather conditions, forecasts, and severe weather alerts for the Purdue West Lafayette campus using live NOAA/NWS data. Customize output with hourly or period-based views.

Instructions

Current conditions and forecast for the Purdue West Lafayette campus, plus any active severe-weather alerts. Source: NOAA/NWS api.weather.gov (live).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "campus_weather"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hourly`	No	Return hour-by-hour instead of day/night periods.
`periods`	No	How many periods. Default 4.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by citing the live NOAA/NWS api.weather.gov source, but it does not discuss data freshness, latency, rate limits, or response format. This is moderate transparency for a simple weather tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the source is a single clear addendum. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, no-required-parameter tool, the description covers the scope (Purdue West Lafayette) and the content (current conditions, forecast, alerts). It could be slightly more explicit about what 'current conditions' includes, but given the lack of output schema and low complexity, the description is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'hourly' and 'periods' are defined in the schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter details, but that is acceptable given the schema already documents them well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool provides current conditions, forecast, and severe-weather alerts for the Purdue West Lafayette campus. It is specific about the resource and scope, and it naturally distinguishes itself from the unrelated sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative weather tools exist among siblings. However, the use case is implied by the description itself: if you need current conditions, forecast, or severe alerts for the Purdue campus, this is the tool to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.