Skip to main content
Glama
BACH-AI-Tools

Open Weather13 MCP Server

by BACH-AI-Tools
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Open Weather13 MCP Server

English | 简体中文 | 繁體中文

🚀 使用 EMCP 平台快速体验

EMCP 是一个强大的 MCP 服务器管理平台，让您无需手动配置即可快速使用各种 MCP 服务器！

快速开始：

  1. 🌐 访问 EMCP 平台

  2. 📝 注册并登录账号

  3. 🎯 进入 MCP 广场，浏览所有可用的 MCP 服务器

  4. 🔍 搜索或找到本服务器（bach-open_weather13）

  5. 🎉 点击 "安装 MCP" 按钮

  6. ✅ 完成！即可在您的应用中使用

EMCP 平台优势：

  • ✨ 零配置：无需手动编辑配置文件

  • 🎨 可视化管理：图形界面轻松管理所有 MCP 服务器

  • 🔐 安全可靠：统一管理 API 密钥和认证信息

  • 🚀 一键安装：MCP 广场提供丰富的服务器选择

  • 📊 使用统计：实时查看服务调用情况

立即访问 EMCP 平台 开始您的 MCP 之旅！

Related MCP server: MCP Weather Free

简介

这是一个使用 FastMCP 自动生成的 MCP 服务器，用于访问 Open Weather13 API。

  • PyPI 包名: bach-open_weather13

  • 版本: 1.0.0

  • 传输协议: stdio

安装

从 PyPI 安装:

pip install bach-open_weather13

从源码安装:

pip install -e .

运行

方式 1: 使用 uvx（推荐，无需安装）

# 运行（uvx 会自动安装并运行）
uvx --from bach-open_weather13 bach_open_weather13

# 或指定版本
uvx --from bach-open_weather13@latest bach_open_weather13

方式 2: 直接运行（开发模式）

python server.py

方式 3: 安装后作为命令运行

# 安装
pip install bach-open_weather13

# 运行（命令名使用下划线）
bach_open_weather13

配置

API 认证

此 API 需要认证。请设置环境变量:

export API_KEY="your_api_key_here"

环境变量

变量名

说明

必需

API_KEY

API 密钥

是

PORT

不适用

否

HOST

不适用

否

在 Claude Desktop 中使用

编辑 Claude Desktop 配置文件 claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "open_weather13": {
      "command": "python",
      "args": ["E:\path\to\open_weather13\server.py"],
      "env": {
        "API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

注意: 请将 E:\path\to\open_weather13\server.py 替换为实际的服务器文件路径。

可用工具

此服务器提供以下工具:

v2___3_hour_forecast_5_days

Get 5 days weather forecast data by Latitude \u0026 Longitude

端点: GET /fivedaysforcast

参数:

  • latitude (string) 必需: Example value: 40.730610

  • longitude (string) 必需: Example value: -73.935242

  • lang (string): We support the following languages that you can use with the corresponded lang values: AFAfrikaans, ALAlbanian, ARArabic, AZAzerbaijani, BGBulgarian, CACatalan, CZCzech, DADanish, DEGerman, ELGreek, ENEnglish, EUBasque, FAPersian (Farsi), FIFinnish, FRFrench, GLGalician, HEHebrew, HIHindi, HRCroatian, HUHungarian, IDIndonesian, ITItalian, JAJapanese, KRKorean, LALatvian, LTLithuanian, MKMacedonian, NONorwegian, NLDutch, PLPolish, PTPortuguese, PT_BRPortuguês Brasil, RORomanian, RURussian, SESwed

  • latitude (string) 必需: Example value: 40.730610

  • longitude (string) 必需: Example value: -73.935242

  • lang (string): Example value: EN

v2___current_weatherby_latitude_u0026_longitude

Get Current Weather Data by Latitude \u0026 Longitude Documentation

端点: GET /latlon

参数:

  • latitude (string) 必需: Example value: 40.730610

  • longitude (string) 必需: Example value: -73.935242

  • lang (string): We support the following languages that you can use with the corresponded lang values: AFAfrikaans, ALAlbanian, ARArabic, AZAzerbaijani, BGBulgarian, CACatalan, CZCzech, DADanish, DEGerman, ELGreek, ENEnglish, EUBasque, FAPersian (Farsi), FIFinnish, FRFrench, GLGalician, HEHebrew, HIHindi, HRCroatian, HUHungarian, IDIndonesian, ITItalian, JAJapanese, KRKorean, LALatvian, LTLithuanian, MKMacedonian, NONorwegian, NLDutch, PLPolish, PTPortuguese, PT_BRPortuguês Brasil, RORomanian, RURussian, SESwed

  • latitude (string) 必需: Example value: 40.730610

  • longitude (string) 必需: Example value: -73.935242

  • lang (string): Example value: EN

v2___current_weather_by_city_name

Get Current Weather Data by City Name Documentation

端点: GET /city

参数:

  • city (string) 必需: Example value: new york

  • lang (string): We support the following languages that you can use with the corresponded lang values: AFAfrikaans, ALAlbanian, ARArabic, AZAzerbaijani, BGBulgarian, CACatalan, CZCzech, DADanish, DEGerman, ELGreek, ENEnglish, EUBasque, FAPersian (Farsi), FIFinnish, FRFrench, GLGalician, HEHebrew, HIHindi, HRCroatian, HUHungarian, IDIndonesian, ITItalian, JAJapanese, KRKorean, LALatvian, LTLithuanian, MKMacedonian, NONorwegian, NLDutch, PLPolish, PTPortuguese, PT_BRPortuguês Brasil, RORomanian, RURussian, SESwed

  • city (string) 必需: Example value: new york

  • lang (string): Example value: EN

技术栈

  • FastMCP: 快速、Pythonic 的 MCP 服务器框架

  • 传输协议: stdio

  • HTTP 客户端: httpx

开发

此服务器由 API-to-MCP 工具自动生成。

版本: 1.0.0

Available Tools

3 tools
v2C

Get 5 days weather forecast data by Latitude \u0026 Longitude

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latitudeYesExample value: 40.730610
longitudeYesExample value: -73.935242
langNoWe support the following languages that you can use with the corresponded lang values: AFAfrikaans, ALAlbanian, ARArabic, AZAzerbaijani, BGBulgarian, CACatalan, CZCzech, DADanish, DEGerman, ELGreek, ENEnglish, EUBasque, FAPersian (Farsi), FIFinnish, FRFrench, GLGalician, HEHebrew, HIHindi, HRCroatian, HUHungarian, IDIndonesian, ITItalian, JAJapanese, KRKorean, LALatvian, LTLithuanian, MKMacedonian, NONorwegian, NLDutch, PLPolish, PTPortuguese, PT_BRPortuguês Brasil, RORomanian, RURussian, SESwed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 tool fetches forecast data but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data format. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a weather API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on response format, error conditions, or any behavioral nuances. While the input schema is well-documented, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema. It implies latitude and longitude are required for fetching weather data, but the schema already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions (including examples for latitude/longitude and a language list for 'lang'). The description does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional insights, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 5 days weather forecast data by Latitude & Longitude'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('weather forecast data'), and scope ('5 days', 'by Latitude & Longitude'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools v2_2 and v2_3, which likely offer similar or related weather data services.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (v2_2, v2_3) or any alternatives. It states what the tool does but offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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

v2_2C

Get Current Weather Data by Latitude \u0026 Longitude Documentation

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latitudeYesExample value: 40.730610
longitudeYesExample value: -73.935242
langNoWe support the following languages that you can use with the corresponded lang values: AFAfrikaans, ALAlbanian, ARArabic, AZAzerbaijani, BGBulgarian, CACatalan, CZCzech, DADanish, DEGerman, ELGreek, ENEnglish, EUBasque, FAPersian (Farsi), FIFinnish, FRFrench, GLGalician, HEHebrew, HIHindi, HRCroatian, HUHungarian, IDIndonesian, ITItalian, JAJapanese, KRKorean, LALatvian, LTLithuanian, MKMacedonian, NONorwegian, NLDutch, PLPolish, PTPortuguese, PT_BRPortuguês Brasil, RORomanian, RURussian, SESwed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a documentation link but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It includes a documentation link which adds value without unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the link or adding brief context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what weather data is returned, response format, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and results.

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%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'Current Weather Data', specifying the input method 'by Latitude & Longitude'. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools v2 and v2_3, which likely have similar weather-related functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools v2 and v2_3, nor does it specify any prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other weather data retrieval methods.

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

v2_3C

Get Current Weather Data by City Name Documentation

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYesExample value: new york
langNoWe support the following languages that you can use with the corresponded lang values: AFAfrikaans, ALAlbanian, ARArabic, AZAzerbaijani, BGBulgarian, CACatalan, CZCzech, DADanish, DEGerman, ELGreek, ENEnglish, EUBasque, FAPersian (Farsi), FIFinnish, FRFrench, GLGalician, HEHebrew, HIHindi, HRCroatian, HUHungarian, IDIndonesian, ITItalian, JAJapanese, KRKorean, LALatvian, LTLithuanian, MKMacedonian, NONorwegian, NLDutch, PLPolish, PTPortuguese, PT_BRPortuguês Brasil, RORomanian, RURussian, SESwed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 external documentation but doesn't describe key behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first phrase. However, the inclusion of a documentation link adds value but doesn't fully integrate into the description's flow. It's efficient but could be slightly more structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that fetches data. It lacks details on response format, error cases, authentication, or how it differs from siblings. The external documentation link hints at more info but doesn't provide it directly, leaving significant gaps.

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 fully documents both parameters (city and lang). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints or examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 Current Weather Data by City Name' specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Current Weather Data'), and primary input ('by City Name'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (v2 and v2_2), leaving ambiguity about how they differ.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions external documentation but gives no context about prerequisites, limitations, or how it compares to sibling tools v2 and v2_2. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedv2
    • First observedv2_2
    • First observedv2_3
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion. v2_2 and v2_3 both get current weather data, differing only by input method (latitude/longitude vs. city name), which may lead to misselection. v2 provides forecast data, which is distinct, but the two current weather tools are ambiguous in scope.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming is inconsistent and lacks a clear pattern. Tools are named v2, v2_2, and v2_3, which are opaque and do not follow a verb_noun convention. This makes it hard to infer functionality from names alone, though the descriptions provide clarity.

Tool Count3/5

With 3 tools, the count is borderline but reasonable for a weather API server. It covers current weather and forecast data, but the scope feels thin, as it lacks tools for other common weather operations like historical data or alerts, making it slightly under-scoped.

Completeness2/5

There are significant gaps in the tool surface for a weather domain. It only provides current weather (with two similar tools) and a 5-day forecast, missing operations like historical weather, air quality, alerts, or multi-location queries. This incompleteness could cause agent failures for broader weather-related tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Weather MCP Server

    agentventure
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An MCP server that provides weather information and alerts for US locations using the National Weather Service API, enabling retrieval of weather forecasts and active weather alerts.
    2
    -

  • MCP Weather Free

    microagents
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An MCP server that provides real-time weather data, hourly forecasts, and daily summaries using the free Open-Meteo API with no API key required. It enables users to search for weather conditions by specific coordinates or city names across multiple measurement units.
    1
    MIT

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/BACH-AI-Tools/open_weather13'

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