Fetch current weather and daily forecasts by latitude and longitude, with an optional forecast period of up to 16 days.
위도, 경도, 예보 기간을 입력하면 Open-Meteo API를 통해 현재 날씨와 일별 예보를 반환합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | 위도 (예: 37.5665 = 서울) | |
| longitude | Yes | 경도 (예: 126.9780 = 서울) | |
| forecast_days | No | 예보 기간 (일 단위, 기본값: 3, 최대: 16) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | 날씨 정보 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the data source (Open-Meteo) and that both current conditions and a daily forecast are returned, which is genuinely useful context, but it omits auth requirements (none needed), rate limits, units, or timezone handling.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the inputs and ends with the outcome. No filler, though the input-then-output framing could be trimmed slightly further.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the tool is simple (3 flat parameters, 2 required). Combined with the schema documentation and the stated API source, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only units/timezone conventions remain unaddressed.
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 100%, with each parameter (latitude, longitude, forecast_days) already documented including example values, ranges, and defaults. The description merely re-lists the same parameters with no added syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (반환합니다/returns) and resources (현재 날씨 current weather, 일별 예보 daily forecast) and even names the backing API (Open-Meteo). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like geocode or now_time, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of 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?
The description restates the required inputs but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions (e.g. when to prefer geocode first to obtain coordinates). Usage is only implied by the parameter list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.