Skip to main content
Glama
gifflet

Weather MCP

by gifflet
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Weather MCP 🌤️

A modern weather service built with MCP (Multi-Cloud Platform) that provides real-time weather data and alerts.

🌟 Features

  • 🌡️ Real-time weather forecasts

  • ⚠️ Weather alerts by state

  • 📍 Location-based weather information

  • 🔄 Easy-to-use API endpoints

Related MCP server: Weather MCP Server

🚀 Getting Started

Prerequisites

  • Node.js (v18 or higher)

  • MCP Server

  • Git

Installation

  1. Clone the repository:

git clone https://github.com/gifflet/weather-mcp.git
cd weather-mcp

  1. Install dependencies and build the project:

npm install && npm run build

💻 Local Development with MCP Server

Configuring MCP Server

  1. Create a .cursor/mcp.json file in your project directory with the following content:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "weather-service": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/ABSOLUTE/PATH/TO/PARENT/FOLDER/weather/build/index.js"],
    }
  }
}

Where /ABSOLUTE/PATH/TO/PARENT/FOLDER/weather/build/index.js is the path to the index.js file in the build folder of the weather-mcp project.

Alternatively, for global configuration, you can create the file at the root of your home directory: .cursor/mcp.json.

Starting the MCP Server

  1. Open the project in Cursor IDE

  2. Go to Cursor Settings > Features > MCP

  3. Your weather service should appear in the list of available MCP servers

  4. If needed, click the refresh button in the top right corner to populate the tool list

Using the Weather Service

After configuring and starting the MCP server in Cursor, you can interact with the weather service using natural language queries. Here are some examples:

Example Queries

  • "What's the weather in Sacramento?"

  • "Are there any active weather alerts in Texas?"

  • "What's the forecast for San Francisco?"

  • "Show me weather alerts for CA"

Note: Since this service uses the US National Weather Service API, queries will only work for locations within the United States.

Under the Hood

When you make a query:

  1. Your question is sent to the LLM

  2. The LLM analyzes the available tools and decides which one(s) to use

  3. The client executes the chosen tool(s) through the MCP server

  4. The results are sent back to the LLM

  5. A natural language response is formulated and displayed to you

Troubleshooting Common Issues

If the tools are not working as expected:

  • Verify your server builds and runs without errors

  • Check that the path in your .cursor/mcp.json is correct and absolute

  • Restart Cursor IDE if needed

  • For coordinates outside the US, you'll receive an error as the service only supports US locations

  • During high traffic, the weather service API might have rate limits

🤝 Contributing

Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.

📝 License

This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.

Available Tools

2 tools
get-alertsB

Get weather alerts for a state

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYesTwo-letter state code (e.g. CA, NY)

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—such as whether it returns active alerts only, historical data, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that might involve external data fetching.

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 purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on what the output contains (e.g., alert types, severity) and behavioral context, making it incomplete for fully informed use without additional assumptions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single 'state' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of state codes or context about alert types. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('weather alerts for a state'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get-forecast', which likely provides different weather data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 the sibling 'get-forecast' or any alternatives. It lacks context about when alerts are relevant (e.g., severe weather) or any prerequisites, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

get-forecastC

Get weather forecast for a location

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latitudeYesLatitude of the location
longitudeYesLongitude of the location

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 states what the tool does but fails to describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the forecast returns, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point with clear subject-verb-object structure.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a weather forecast tool, users would need to know what data is returned (temperature, precipitation, timeframe, etc.), but the description provides no information about the response format or content. The combination of missing behavioral context and output details creates 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (latitude and longitude) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing 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 ('weather forecast for a location'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'get-alerts', which likely serves a related but distinct purpose in weather data retrieval.

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 sibling 'get-alerts'. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to make an informed choice between available tools.

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. 2 tool updates
    • First observedget-alerts
    • First observedget-forecast
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves weather alerts for states, while the other provides forecasts for locations. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on the need.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get-' prefix and hyphenated names (get-alerts, get-forecast). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count2/5

With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a weather domain. Key operations like getting current conditions, historical data, or radar imagery are missing, making the set too thin for comprehensive weather-related tasks.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for a weather server. It lacks basic operations such as current weather, historical data, or severe weather details, creating significant gaps that will hinder agents in performing common weather-related workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

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 Query MCP

    sunholdshen
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    A simple MCP service that allows users to query weather conditions for cities worldwide through the Cursor AI assistant.
    1
    -

  • Weather MCP Server

    im-zhong
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that enables users to fetch weather forecasts through Cursor AI by using natural language queries.
    MIT

  • Weather MCP Server

    amuralik-gh
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables users to get weather forecasts and alerts for any US city and state through natural language queries using the National Weather Service API.
    -

  • mcp-weather-api

    devgrunge
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides weather forecasts and alerts for US locations via the National Weather Service API, enabling AI assistants to deliver real-time weather information.
    28
    -

Appeared in Searches

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/gifflet/weather-mcp'

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