Weather API MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('weather data hour by hour for the next 24 hours') but fails to cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential external API dependencies.

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?

The description is front-loaded and concise, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a read-only tool. It covers the basic purpose and output format but omits details on behavioral traits, error cases, and sibling differentiation, which are important for full contextual understanding.

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%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters ('location' and 'options') and their sub-properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('hourly weather forecast for a location'), specifying it returns data 'hour by hour for the next 24 hours'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getWeather' or 'getWeatherForecast', which might offer different time granularities or scopes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'getWeather' or 'getWeatherForecast'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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