Skip to main content
Glama
woongaro

KMA Weather MCP Server

by woongaro
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides an ultra short-term forecast for the next 6 hours, while the other offers a village forecast for up to 3 days. There is no overlap in their temporal scope or use cases, making it easy for an agent to choose the appropriate tool based on the required timeframe.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' prefix and descriptive names (get_ultra_short_term_forecast and get_village_forecast). The naming is predictable and readable, adhering to snake_case throughout without any deviations.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a weather forecasting domain, as it lacks coverage for common needs like current conditions, alerts, or longer-term forecasts beyond 3 days. This limited scope may hinder agents from performing comprehensive weather-related tasks.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for weather forecasting, missing essential operations such as getting current weather, historical data, or severe weather alerts. While the two tools cover short-term forecasts, the absence of broader functionality creates significant gaps that could lead to agent failures in real-world scenarios.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the forecast covers 'Next 6 hours' and use cases, but does not disclose critical traits like data sources, update frequency, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a weather tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

    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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by brief usage examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (weather forecasting with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers basic purpose and usage but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and sibling differentiation. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in context, especially with no annotations to supplement it.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    The input schema has 2 parameters (latitude, longitude) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any parameter semantics. It fails to explain what these coordinates represent (e.g., geographic point for forecast), their format, or constraints, leaving parameters undocumented beyond their names and types.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Ultra Short Term Forecast (Next 6 hours)' specifies the verb (get) and resource (forecast) with a time scope. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_village_forecast' by focusing on ultra-short-term rather than village-level forecasts, though the distinction could be more explicit.

    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?

    The description includes 'useful for: checking immediate weather changes, near-future rain/snow probability,' which implies usage context for immediate weather needs. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_village_forecast' or any alternatives, leaving the distinction somewhat vague.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait: 'Can be slow as it returns a lot of data' - this provides valuable context about performance. However, it doesn't mention other important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'a lot of data' specifically means in terms of response structure.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that each add value: purpose statement, usage guidelines, and performance warning. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The structure is logical, though the 'useful for' phrasing could be more direct.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given that an output schema exists (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 2 required parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more parameter context and additional behavioral transparency. The performance warning is helpful but insufficient for full completeness.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides NO information about the parameters (latitude and longitude) - no explanation of what they represent, their format, valid ranges, or units. The description mentions the tool returns forecast data but doesn't connect this to the required location parameters.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Village Forecast (Short Term, up to 3 days)' - this specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Village Forecast'), and temporal scope ('Short Term, up to 3 days'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_ultra_short_term_forecast' by specifying a different time horizon. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling beyond temporal differences.

    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?

    The description provides clear usage context: 'useful for: planning for tomorrow or the day after, checking daily highs/lows' - this explicitly states when to use the tool. It doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives, but the temporal scope implies it's not for immediate forecasts (which the sibling tool likely covers).

    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

KMA-WEATHER-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

KMA-WEATHER-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/woongaro/KMA-WEATHER-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server