
Baseline Mcp
io.github.elninyo-opsPublished by GitHub account elninyo-opsv0.1.9Updated Oct 24, 2026
Statistically rigorous weather and climate context: forecast plus 35-year historical ranking.
Overview
A local MCP server that gives an assistant ranked 35-year weather and climate context for any location, with station cross-checks and explicit reliability notes
- What you can do
- Answer natural-language climate questions with forecast plus 35-year ranked context, or do the same for exact coordinates and water-year status at a location, ranked against 35 years of records. Compare how unusual near-term conditions are against normal at one place. Rank precipitation, temperature or snowfall across 2 to 10 locations or a curated category over a water year, season, month or ski season. Each response includes an assessment field stating the provider's own confidence, including near-ties, station disagreement and cases where no cross-check ran.
- When to use it
- Useful when a question needs historical climate standing rather than a bare number, such as whether a month ranked unusually warm or wet, whether a season was near normal, or how several locations compare over a season or water year. Also suited to disputes or planning where a station cross-check and an honest confidence note matter.
- Requirements
- Runs locally as a Python package (pip or uvx) over stdio, or as a streamable HTTP server on 127.0.0.1. Requires the BASELINE_API_URL environment variable and the BASELINE_API_KEY secret; keys are not self-serve and must be requested by email. Network access to the Baseline API is needed.
Installation
In SourceWeft
- Open Baseline Mcp in the dashboard and add it to a workspace.
- Enable the server for the chats that should use its tools.
Desktop only via STDIO. STDIO servers start a local process, so they need the SourceWeft desktop host.
Other MCP clients
Follow the launch instructions in the repository.
README
Baseline Climate
Stop your agent inventing climate context. Ranked 35-year records for any point on Earth, cross-checked against real stations, with an explicit reliability note to relay instead of guess.
Ask it something, and this is what comes back.
A ranking — with the near-tie disclosed, and a station agreeing:
August 2026: Mean temperature was 75°F, +2.8°F from normal, ranking as the 8th warmest since 1991 — though the 7th warmest through 9th warmest years are within 0.7°F of each other. A nearby station (CASPER-NATRONA COUNTY AP, 8.4 mi) agrees: +2.1°F from its own normal, against the reanalysis's +2.8°F.
A station that does not agree — the gauge a mile away read half the grid's total:
March 2026: Precipitation totaled 2.30 in — near average for this period historically. A nearby station (BOZEMAN MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY, 1.3 mi) measured 1.12 in, against the reanalysis's 2.30 in.
A wind ranking that says plainly it is modeled, not measured:
March 2026: Modeled peak gust: 60 mph, ranking as the 3rd gustiest since 1991 — though it's within 1 mph of the 6th gustiest year. A station (Saratoga, 32.1 mi) measured a peak gust of 59 mph. The reanalysis figure is a modeled estimate, not a direct reading.
A seasonal outlook carrying its own skill label:
Leaning wetter than normal for Sep–Nov in Nairobi, on odds we haven't been able to verify here — below normal 5%, near normal 19%, above normal 76%. Forecasts here do track wetter and drier seasons, so the direction is the part worth using; whether the percentages themselves beat a climatological guess has not been shown.
Four things worth noticing. It gives you the rank, not just the number. It tells you when the rank is a near-tie, so you don't over-read it. It goes and asks a real weather station whether the gridded record is right — and when the station disagrees, it says so rather than papering over it. And when it can't vouch for its own forecast, it tells you that too.
The data isn't new. Asking it a question is.
ERA5 has been sitting in public archives for years. Interrogating it meant knowing which dataset, writing the code, and having an afternoon. That cost is what collapsed — and the interesting consequence is that people now ask things they'd never have thought worth the trouble.
The Bozeman example above isn't a weather lookup. It's a construction schedule dispute, where the question was whether rain actually stopped work — and the gridded record said one thing while the gauge a mile away said another. The wind example is a trucking corridor. Neither would have been worth opening a climate dataset for. Both take a sentence now.
That's the claim: not that historical weather data exists, but that the cost of asking it a real question has fallen far enough that weather becomes one ordinary input into questions that aren't about weather.
What it won't claim
Most tools hand you a number. This one hands you the number and its standing.
- Near-ties are disclosed. "8th warmest — though the 7th through 9th are within 0.7°F" stops a model reporting a rank as though it were a meaningful gap.
- Station disagreement moves confidence, and says which way. A gauge reading 1.12 in against a grid's 2.30 in is reported, not averaged away.
- When no cross-check ran, it says why — no nearby station, outside the covered region, source didn't respond. The gap is named rather than left for the model to fill.
- Seasonal outlooks carry an honest skill label. Calibrated from ECMWF SEAS5 against 35 years of observations, then labelled by what testing actually showed: that the odds beat a climatological guess here, or that only the direction is worth using, or — where a simple warming trend predicted the season better than the model did — that the model isn't the thing to go on. We publish the cases where our own forecast isn't the best available answer.
Every response carries an assessment field with Baseline Climate's own confidence statement, and
the tool descriptions instruct the model to relay it rather than compose its own. That exists
because the failure mode is real: given a bare number, models invent records that weren't broken,
assert a dataset is unreliable somewhere it isn't, and recycle one station disagreement across
unrelated answers.
What it's made of
Rankings use the full 1991–present record; "normal" means the WMO 1991–2020 reference period. See METHODOLOGY.md for how rankings, percentiles and water years are computed, and where the limits are.
Tools
get_climate_context— a natural-language question; forecast plus 35-year ranked context.get_context_for_coordinates— the same for an exact lat/lon.get_water_year_status— precipitation and temperature since the start of the water year, ranked against 35 years.compare_to_normal— how unusual near-term conditions are at one location.compare_locations— rank precipitation, temperature or snowfall across 2–10 locations, or a curated category, over a water year, season, month or ski season.
Install
Requires an API key. Self-serve signup isn't available yet — email Chad McNutt ([email protected]) during this early period.
Claude Code
Claude Desktop — ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json:
Cursor — .cursor/mcp.json, same shape as above.
As an HTTP server (streamable HTTP, for hosting behind a reverse proxy):
It serves /mcp on 127.0.0.1 and holds no key of its own: every request must carry the caller's
key in an X-Api-Key (or Authorization: Bearer) header, and each tool call is made with that
key, so it counts against that key's own quota. A request without a valid key gets a 401. The
default, --transport stdio, is the local server shown above.
Contributing
This package is a thin translation layer: no climate logic lives here, and every tool call is an
HTTP request to the Baseline Climate API. See CONTRIBUTING.md in the repository for local
development setup.
MIT licensed.
Source: README.md at commit 379d7cc
Tools
0Version history
3- v0.1.9LatestSep 26, 2026
- v0.1.8Sep 22, 2026
- v0.1.1Sep 16, 2026
Score
50% of the applicable checks met
How complete this listing is, computed from the registry entry, the endpoint and public sources. Not a rating of the server and not a statement that it is safe or working today: reachability is a dated check, and no installs or reviews go into the score.
- Reached in the last 30 days25 pts
Keep the endpoint answering the MCP handshake; SourceWeft probes it every 30 days.
- Auth declared10 pts
Declare the credential headers in the registry entry, or keep the endpoint answering the probe so its auth can be classified.
- Tools listed15 pts
Answer tools/list without a credential, or ship a package that starts in a sandbox without one.
- DescriptionRequired15 pts
- Logo10 pts
- Documentation15 pts
- License10 pts