ph-civic-data-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Historical typhoon tracks through the PAR

get_historical_typhoons_ph

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve historical typhoon tracks within the Philippine Area of Responsibility using NOAA IBTrACS data. Specify a year and optional limit to get storm details like peak intensity and track period.

Instructions

Historical tropical cyclone tracks that passed through the Philippine AOR.

Sourced from NOAA IBTrACS (International Best Track Archive), the authoritative global archive for tropical cyclone tracks. Filtered to the Western Pacific basin and coordinates inside the Philippine Area of Responsibility, aggregated per storm. The result streams the source CSV row by row and returns the most recent storms that crossed the PAR, sorted by start time. Returns peak intensity, minimum pressure, and track period. Examples:

get_historical_typhoons_ph() # last 3 years, up to 30 storms get_historical_typhoons_ph(year=2024) # season 2024, up to 30 storms get_historical_typhoons_ph(year=2024, limit=10) # season 2024, up to 10 storms

On failure: a stream error, a response with no data rows, or a CSV header missing a required column returns a dict. data_status is "unavailable", upstream_error is true, and results is empty, with the real error text in caveats.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	No	Season year. None returns recent (last 3 years).
`limit`	No	Max storms to return (default 30).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0Jun 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / result / items

Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / result / type
```
Removed value: -"array"
```

Addedv0.4.0May 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds transparency about failure modes (e.g., returning a dict with data_status and caveats on errors) and streaming behavior. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining what happens on failure, though it does not discuss performance or side effects beyond that. The additional detail is valuable but not exhaustive.

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 reasonably concise but contains some redundancy—for instance, 'Historical' appears in both the title and first sentence, and the filtering/aggregation details are restated. The structure (purpose, source, output, examples, failure) is logical and efficient, with no irrelevant information, but slightly more compression would improve clarity.

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?

For a tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive picture: it states the data source, filtering logic, output fields, default behavior, examples, and error handling. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further reference. The inclusion of failure modes and examples makes it highly complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (year nullable with default, limit with default). The description reinforces these with examples showing defaults and clarifies the meaning of 'None' for year. While the schema alone already explains the parameters, the examples and context about 'most recent' add useful practical nuance, earning a slightly above-baseline score.

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 it returns historical tropical cyclone tracks within the Philippine Area of Responsibility, with details on source (NOAA IBTrACS), filtering, and output fields (peak intensity, minimum pressure, track period). It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_active_typhoons, which focus on current storms, by the explicit 'Historical' label and the 'most recent storms' phrasing tied to the optional year parameter.

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 provides examples and explains parameter defaults, implicitly guiding when to use this tool (e.g., for historical typhoon data). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_active_typhoons or state 'use this for historical data, not for active storms.' The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it falls short of a clear when/when-not directive.

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

Deploy Server