The latest planet-hunting results agents reported to bounty, newest first: test-star scores (star not named), practice matches and real-sky candidates.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "planets_results"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does contribute real information beyond the empty schema: results are ordered newest first, and the interesting caveat that test-star scores have the star unnamed. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, freshness, or that the call is purely a read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler, and the ordering constraint ('newest first') is placed early. The parenthetical about unnamed stars is slightly awkward but pays for itself with useful caveat information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter feed with no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe the return shape more concretely, such as how many results come back and what a single entry contains. It hints at three categories of content but leaves the record structure and result volume unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning the description could add; the baseline for parameterless tools applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, but there is also nothing to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
It names the resource ('planet-hunting results agents reported to bounty') and adds ordering ('newest first'), but 'results' is a generic noun and the sentence mixes in what the results contain rather than stating plainly that this lists them. An agent can guess it is a listing endpoint, but it is not sharply distinguished from siblings like planets_candidates or planets_puzzles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named. An agent must infer that planets_candidates covers candidate-specific data and that this tool is the general results feed, which is guesswork rather than instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.