windai-mcp

compare_wind_sites

Evaluate up to 5 wind sites simultaneously. Compare mean wind speed, IEC wind class, wind quality, and power density in ranked tables to identify optimal locations for wind farm development. Free, no API key required.

Instructions

Compare wind potential at multiple locations side by side. Up to 5 locations. Returns a ranked comparison table with mean wind speed, IEC wind class, wind quality, and wind power density for each site. Free, no API key required.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "locations": "<locations>"
    },
    "name": "compare_wind_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`locations`	Yes	Array of locations to compare (max 5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden and discloses: output format (ranked table with specific metrics like IEC wind class), constraints (max 5 sites), and auth requirements (free, no API key). Could improve by mentioning rate limits or error conditions.

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?

Four efficient sentences front-loaded with purpose ('Compare wind potential...'), followed by constraints, output specification, and auth info. No redundant or wasted text; every clause delivers actionable information.

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?

Excellent coverage for complexity level: explains detailed output metrics (compensating for missing output schema), clarifies the comparison/ranking nature, and documents auth. Minor gap: doesn't explain validation behavior for edge cases (e.g., invalid coordinates).

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 coverage is 100% (locations array fully documented with lat/lon/name). Description reinforces the 'up to 5' constraint and 'compare' purpose but does not add syntax examples, formatting details, or semantic context beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Compare' with resource 'wind potential' and clearly distinguishes from siblings via 'multiple locations side by side' and 'ranked comparison table', differentiating it from single-site tools like get_wind_estimate.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context that this is for multi-site analysis (2-5 locations) with 'Up to 5 locations', establishing when to use it versus single-site alternatives. Lacks explicit naming of sibling alternatives or explicit 'when not to use' exclusions.

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

Deploy Server