The server exposes three weather lookup tools with clear verb-based names (get_weather, get_available_prefectures, get_available_cities). All three tools are explicitly registered in FastMCP and have descriptions. However, there are significant gaps in schema documentation and parameter descriptions. The input schemas are visible and typed, but parameter descriptions are minimal or missing context for LLM reasoning. Output schemas are not documented at all. Error handling is minimal, no guidance on what happens when a prefecture or city is not found, no recovery suggestions. The tool names are appropriate but descriptions lack the depth needed to help an LLM decide WHEN to use each tool versus others. The server is READ_ONLY with no state modifications, reducing risk, but the lack of comprehensive documentation and error guidance keeps the overall score in the fair-to-poor range.
Get list of available cities for a specified prefecture
Get list of available prefectures for weather queries
Get weather forecast for specified prefecture and optional city
Output schemas are not documented. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or know what fields to extract from responses. No documentation of what get_weather returns (temperature, forecast details, timestamp format, etc.).
Parameter descriptions are minimal or lack context. 'Prefecture name in Japan' and 'City name (optional, if not provided uses first city in prefecture)' do not explain WHEN to use each tool, what the difference is between get_available_prefectures (discovery) and get_weather (action), or what format prefectures/cities should be in (Roman names like 'Tokyo' vs Japanese characters vs codes).
No error handling guidance. What happens if the prefecture is misspelled or does not exist? What if the city name is ambiguous? No recovery suggestions (e.g., 'Call get_available_prefectures() to see valid options') are provided, forcing the LLM to guess next steps.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 44 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 29 | - | v1 |
Tool descriptions do not indicate WHEN to use get_available_prefectures vs get_available_cities vs get_weather. An LLM must infer from the names that these are discovery tools, but explicit guidance ('Call this first to discover available locations') is missing.
The 'city' parameter in get_weather says 'optional, if not provided uses first city in prefecture' but does not document what 'first city' means, alphabetical order in the hardcoded list, geographic order, population order? This ambiguity makes the tool behavior unpredictable.