Skip to main content
Glama
wcnm8888

io.github.wcnm8888/mcp1-weather-query

by wcnm8888
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is zero ambiguity in tool selection. The tool's purpose is clearly distinct by being the sole option.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'get_current_weather' follows the standard verb_noun pattern, which is clear and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    One tool is minimal, but the server's scope is explicitly limited to current conditions, making the count reasonable if slightly thin.

    Completeness5/5

    For the stated purpose of returning current weather conditions, the tool fully covers the domain; forecasts and alerts are intentionally excluded.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 27 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond those flags: results are model-based current conditions, the tool is not a general URL fetcher, and resolved locations can be ambiguous. It does not mention potential rate limits or data freshness, but those are minor given the strong annotation coverage.

    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 with no filler: the core action and scope are front-loaded, exclusions are stated compactly, and the critical usage warning about ambiguous place names is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers purpose, exclusions, and the key ambiguity caveat, and the annotations plus schema provide the rest. There are no sibling tools to distinguish, so nothing material is missing.

    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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces that location is city/postal-code-like text but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

    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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('city or postal-code-like location') and states the outcome: return read-only, model-based current conditions. It also explicitly delimits the tool's scope by listing what it does not provide (forecasts, alerts, advice, or URL content), which removes ambiguity even without 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 Guidelines5/5

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

    The description provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('does not provide forecasts, alerts, advice, or arbitrary URL content') and actionable advice for the main use case ('Always inspect resolved_location because place names can be ambiguous'). This is sufficient routing guidance given there are no sibling tools.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

io.github.wcnm8888/mcp1-weather-query MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

io.github.wcnm8888/mcp1-weather-query MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md: