Active US weather alerts (NWS) — Active watches/warnings/advisories for a US state or coordinate: event type, severity, headline, timing. Source: National Weather Service. JSON. Price: $0.003 USDC (Base, via x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | optional latitude | |
| lon | No | optional longitude | |
| state | Yes | 2-letter state e.g. TN (or use lat+lon) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: National Weather Service as source, JSON output format, pricing/cost, and the specific alert fields returned. No contradiction with annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently adds scope, source, output fields, format, and price. Every clause contributes useful information with no filler.
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?
For a simple read-only lookup, the description is mostly complete: it states inputs, output fields, source, format, and cost. The main gap is that 'state or coordinate' could mislead an agent into omitting the required state field, and there is no output schema, though the listed fields mitigate that concern.
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 already documents all three parameters. The description restates the state-or-coordinate usage mode but adds no new format or constraint details. The phrase 'state or coordinate' is also slightly ambiguous against the schema's required ['state'], though this likely originates from the schema's own 'or use lat+lon' note.
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?
Clearly identifies the tool as retrieving active NWS watches/warnings/advisories for a US state or coordinate. The alert-specific nouns and 'Active' scope distinguish it from sibling weather tools like weather_current, weather_forecast, and weather_metar without needing to open the schema.
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?
Provides clear context: use it for active US alerts by state or coordinate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as weather_travel_risk, so the usage guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools are clearly separated by prefix and data source, but several bundled products overlap heavily: vehicle_deal_check vs vehicle_report, realestate_property_report vs realestate_site_risk, finance_company_360 vs finance_health_scan, and domain_due_diligence vs email_domain_check/business_vet. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the correct premium bundle.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a consistent snake_case category-prefix pattern like weather_, crypto_, vehicle_, finance_, and geo_. Minor deviations such as bare names (domain, ip) and noun-verb forms (dns_lookup, url_check) are easy to learn and don't create real confusion.
50 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped 3–15 range and will require heavy filtering to navigate. The broad multi-domain data marketplace partially justifies the size, but it would be more coherent split into per-domain servers or consolidated further.
For a read-only data/diligence marketplace, the surface is quite comprehensive: weather, vehicle, crypto, SEC/finance, domain/email, sanctions, and geo workflows all have core operations plus fused verdict bundles. Minor gaps exist—such as a simple crypto price lookup or vehicle market value—but agents can usually work around them.