weather-mcp
MCP server that provides weather tools for current conditions, daily forecasts, and outdoor activity recommendations using Open-Meteo data.
README
Weather MCP server
An MCP server that exposes three weather tools to a Databricks Agent Bricks agent. It runs as a Databricks App at
https://weather-mcp-7474645136578041.aws.databricksapps.com
with the MCP endpoint at /mcp. That URL is what gets registered with the
agent as an external MCP server.
The source lives at https://github.com/gisaf22/weather-mcp, which is where the commit history is — this zip carries none.
The app sits behind Databricks workspace authentication, so that URL is not reachable from outside the workspace: opening it returns a login page rather than the server. That is expected, not a broken deployment. The demonstration screenshots below are what show it running.
Data source and auth
Weather data comes from Open-Meteo. I picked it because it needs no API key and no signup — there are no secrets to manage at all.
That is a visible difference from the Alpaca paper-trading server this was
patterned on. There, every call had to fetch credentials from a Databricks
secret scope through a _secret() helper, and app.yaml needed an env
block to point at the scope. Here app.yaml has no env block and
weather_broker.py has no _secret() equivalent, because there is nothing to
authenticate.
Locations are resolved through Open-Meteo's geocoding endpoint, so any place name the geocoder knows will work. There is no hardcoded list of supported cities.
Files
| File | What it holds |
|---|---|
weather_mcp_server.py |
The three MCP tools and their docstrings. No requests calls live here. |
weather_broker.py |
Every HTTP call and all response parsing, plus the WMO weather-code table and the LocationNotFound exception. |
app.yaml |
Databricks App entrypoint. No env block — see above. |
requirements.txt |
fastmcp and requests. |
agent/system_prompt.md |
The system prompt configured on the agent, with notes on which rules came from observed failures. |
The split matters: the tool functions compose broker calls and shape the
result, and that is all they do. Swapping Open-Meteo for another provider
means rewriting weather_broker.py and leaving the MCP surface alone.
Tools
get_current_weather(location: str) -> dict
Current conditions for a place name. Returns the resolved location alongside
temperature_f, feels_like_f, humidity_pct, wind_mph, conditions, and
observed_at.
get_forecast(location: str, days: int = 3) -> dict
Daily forecast, 1–7 days. Returns the resolved location plus one entry per day
with date, high_f, low_f, precipitation_chance_pct, max_wind_mph, and
conditions.
get_outdoor_recommendation(location: str, date: str | None = None) -> dict
Judges whether a day suits outdoor plans and says which weather factors drove
the judgment. date is ISO YYYY-MM-DD and defaults to today at the location.
A factor fires when its condition holds:
| Factor | Condition |
|---|---|
rain likely |
precipitation_chance_pct >= 50 |
possible rain |
precipitation_chance_pct 30–49 |
heat |
high_f >= 90 |
cold |
low_f <= 45 |
wind |
max_wind_mph >= 25 |
thunderstorm |
WMO weather code 95–99 |
The verdict combines them:
| Verdict | When |
|---|---|
poor |
a thunderstorm is forecast, or precipitation >= 50%, or high >= 95F |
caution |
none of those, but at least one other factor fired |
good |
no factor fired |
Each factor carries the actual value that triggered it, not just the rule name:
{"rule": "possible rain", "value": 43, "note": "43% chance of precipitation"}
That is the point of the tool. It is the single factor that fired in demonstration (b) below, on a day with a high of 80.0F: the agent can answer "a 43% chance of precipitation" instead of only "caution", and the number it cites is the one the threshold actually tested.
All three tools return {"status": "error", "message": ...} on failure — an
unrecognized place, a date outside the forecast range, or an API problem. A
stack trace never reaches the agent; the traceback goes to the app logs.
Setup
git clone <this repo>
cd weather-mcp
python3 -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate
pip install -r requirements.txt
Run it locally:
python weather_mcp_server.py # serves on :8000, MCP at /mcp
weather_broker.py also runs standalone and exercises the API directly, which
is the fastest way to check the data layer without the MCP wrapper:
python weather_broker.py
Deploy
Deploy as a Databricks App using this repo as the source, with app.yaml as
the entrypoint. Then register https://<app-url>/mcp with the Agent Bricks
agent as an external MCP server, and paste agent/system_prompt.md into the
agent's instructions.
Redeploying: pushing to GitHub does not update the app. The Databricks Git folder has to pull the new commits first, and only then does a redeploy pick them up. Pushing and redeploying without the pull in between silently ships the old code — worth knowing before debugging a fix that appears not to have taken effect.
Demonstration
Four exchanges from the Agent Bricks playground, each showing the question, the tool call the agent made, and its reply.
(a) "What's the weather in Chicago right now?"

Routes to get_current_weather and reports the resolved location as Chicago,
Illinois — so the user can tell it did not answer for Chicago, Jalisco.
(b) "Should I plan a picnic in Chicago tomorrow?"

Routes to get_outdoor_recommendation, which returns a caution verdict, and
the agent cites the 43% precipitation figure carried in factors rather than
repeating the verdict alone.
(c) "What's the forecast for Austin this weekend?"

Routes to get_forecast and reports each day by date — "August 9", "August 10",
"August 11" — rather than computing weekday names.
(d) "What's the weather in Zzyzxville?"

Calls get_current_weather anyway rather than refusing on its own judgment, and
relays the tool's own error message back to the user as a request to confirm the
spelling.
The earlier failure this replaced — the agent skipping the tool entirely and declaring the place fictional — no longer reproduces with the system prompt in place, so there is no screenshot of it. It is described in Findings.
Findings
Three things I measured rather than assumed.
FastMCP shows the agent less of the docstring than I wrote
FastMCP builds a tool's description from only the first prose section of
its docstring. Everything from the first section header onward is dropped.
Args: survives, but as per-parameter descriptions inside the input schema,
not as part of the description. Returns: is discarded entirely.
A bare Header: line followed by an indented block also parses as a section.
That silently swallowed my verdict rules — the agent could see the factor
thresholds but not how they combined into poor / caution / good. Renaming
the header to Verdict rules (how the fired factors combine): was enough to
stop the parser treating it as a section, because the parentheses break the
pattern.
I found this by dumping the live tool descriptions over an MCP client
connection and diffing them against the source, not by reading documentation.
Before the fix, get_forecast was sending the agent 205 characters; after
hoisting everything above Args:, 1,535. Everything the agent needs — resolved
location semantics, field meanings, the thresholds, the error contract — now
lives in that first prose section.
Two Open-Meteo fields answer different questions
weather_code and precipitation_probability_max are not two views of the
same thing. The daily weather code is the most significant weather expected at
any point in the day; the probability is the likelihood of measurable rain
across the day. They routinely disagree.
Austin returned WMO code 82 — "violent rain showers" in the official table — next to a 3% precipitation chance. The mapping was correct; the pairing is just what a daily maximum looks like next to a daily likelihood. The agent reported it as a contradiction until the docstring explained the difference.
Two fixes. The docstrings now state what each field measures and that a low percentage beside a stormy label means brief and unlikely, not contradictory. And the shower labels were softened from the official slight/moderate/violent wording — "violent rain showers" reads as a severe-weather warning and badly oversells a 3% day, so codes 80/81/82 now render as "scattered showers", "rain showers", and "heavy showers possible".
The system prompt fixed the factual failures but not the stylistic one
Two failures went away once the prompt addressed them directly: inventing weekday names that did not match the dates, and skipping the tool call entirely to declare a place fictional. Both are now explicit rules, and both held.
The second one held in action but not in narration, which is the more interesting result. In demonstration (d) the agent calls the tool and relays its error message, exactly as instructed — but its reasoning line reads "I am going to use the get_current_weather tool... however I anticipate the tool will return an error because Zzyzxville does not appear to be a real location." The rule reliably stopped it from acting on its own judgment about whether a place exists. It did not stop it forming that judgment, or saying so out loud. An instruction can govern which tool call happens; it does not govern what the model believes on the way there.
One rule did not hold at all. The prompt says not to add generic advice the tools did not produce, naming hydration reminders and tents specifically. The agent still appends them: demonstration (c) closes with "Make sure to stay hydrated and plan for the heat", and (b) with "consider bringing umbrellas or a tent" — both visible in the screenshots above, neither traceable to anything a tool returned. I left it. The factual accuracy rules are what matter here, and chasing the padding with more prompt text was not worth the added instruction surface.
Known limitations
- The thresholds are chosen, not derived. 90F for heat, 25 mph for wind, 50% for rain likely — these are my judgment calls, not any published standard. They are stated numerically in the tool docstring so the agent can explain them, but a different set would be equally defensible.
- Ambiguous names resolve silently to the largest match. Open-Meteo orders geocoding results by population and the broker takes the first. "Chicago" gets Chicago, Illinois, not the real Chicago in Jalisco, Mexico. The resolved name, region, and country are returned so the agent can state which one it used, but nothing prompts the user to disambiguate before answering.
- Seven days is the ceiling. Requests beyond that are clamped, a limit of the free Open-Meteo forecast endpoint.
推荐服务器
Baidu Map
百度地图核心API现已全面兼容MCP协议,是国内首家兼容MCP协议的地图服务商。
Playwright MCP Server
一个模型上下文协议服务器,它使大型语言模型能够通过结构化的可访问性快照与网页进行交互,而无需视觉模型或屏幕截图。
Magic Component Platform (MCP)
一个由人工智能驱动的工具,可以从自然语言描述生成现代化的用户界面组件,并与流行的集成开发环境(IDE)集成,从而简化用户界面开发流程。
Audiense Insights MCP Server
通过模型上下文协议启用与 Audiense Insights 账户的交互,从而促进营销洞察和受众数据的提取和分析,包括人口统计信息、行为和影响者互动。
VeyraX
一个单一的 MCP 工具,连接你所有喜爱的工具:Gmail、日历以及其他 40 多个工具。
graphlit-mcp-server
模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器实现了 MCP 客户端与 Graphlit 服务之间的集成。 除了网络爬取之外,还可以将任何内容(从 Slack 到 Gmail 再到播客订阅源)导入到 Graphlit 项目中,然后从 MCP 客户端检索相关内容。
Kagi MCP Server
一个 MCP 服务器,集成了 Kagi 搜索功能和 Claude AI,使 Claude 能够在回答需要最新信息的问题时执行实时网络搜索。
e2b-mcp-server
使用 MCP 通过 e2b 运行代码。
Neon MCP Server
用于与 Neon 管理 API 和数据库交互的 MCP 服务器
Exa MCP Server
模型上下文协议(MCP)服务器允许像 Claude 这样的 AI 助手使用 Exa AI 搜索 API 进行网络搜索。这种设置允许 AI 模型以安全和受控的方式获取实时的网络信息。