CycleCalcs Astronomy

Place name to coordinates and timezone

astro_find_place

Read-only

Resolve a place name to coordinates, region, country, IANA timezone and a stable place_id, or reverse-look-up the nearest places to a lat/lon. Results are GeoNames data (CC BY 4.0); the response carries the required credit in its attribution field, which must be preserved when results are shown. Note the other tools accept a place argument directly, so this is only needed to disambiguate a name, filter by country, or reverse-geocode.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	A place_id from an earlier result, to fetch that exact place.
`lat`	No	Latitude in decimal degrees, north positive. Send lat and lon together.
`lon`	No	Longitude in decimal degrees, east positive (Lisbon is about -9.14). Send lat and lon together.
`limit`	No	Maximum matches to return. Default 5.
`query`	No	Place name to search for, e.g. "Springfield".
`country`	No	Two-letter ISO country code filter, e.g. "US".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Coordinates for a place name, or the nearest named places to coordinates.
`rights`	No	Either unrestricted, or attribution_required when third-party place data was used. When attribution_required, the attribution line must be shown.
`warnings`	No	Machine-readable notices about this answer. Present only when non-empty. Never changes whether the call succeeded.
`attribution`	No	The credit line to display verbatim when rights is attribution_required.
`next_cursor`	No	Present only when more rows exist. Send it back with the SAME start/end arguments as the first call to get the next page.
`not_computed`	No	Data this API deliberately does not serve, and why. Present only when the question touched such a field. An absence named here is information: treat it as "withheld", never as "none exists".

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about GeoNames data licensing (CC BY 4.0) and requires preserving the attribution field, which is a behavioral constraint beyond what annotations provide. It does not elaborate on rate limits or response details, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides context on licensing and usage. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the description is complete. It states the dual functionality, data source, attribution requirement, and explicitly positions it against siblings. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide on and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-described (ids, lat/lon ranges, defaults, etc.). The description adds context that lat/lon are for reverse lookup and that id fetches an exact place, but this largely restates schema info. The main added value is clarifying the two operational modes, which indirectly helps parameter interpretation, but the schema already does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: resolving place names to coordinates, region, country, IANA timezone, and a stable place_id, or reverse-look-up from lat/lon. It also explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting that other tools accept a place argument directly, making this tool only needed for disambiguation, country filtering, or reverse geocoding.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'this is only needed to disambiguate a name, filter by country, or reverse-geocode.' This clearly contrasts with sibling tools that accept a place argument directly, giving the agent a decision rule for selection.

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

All CycleCalcs Astronomy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct observational need: dark windows, eclipses, geocoding, moon state, phase calendar, planet overview, planet events, precise positions, rise/set times, broad snapshot, and solar day. Cross-references among descriptions prevent ambiguity despite overlapping data like rise/set times appearing in several tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the astro_ prefix and use snake_case, creating a predictable pattern. The naming is mostly noun-based (the object of interest), but astro_find_place and astro_rise_set break the pure-noun pattern, introducing a slight inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the server covers the major areas of practical astronomy without redundancy. Each tool provides a distinct calculation or data set, and the count fits the expected scope for an astronomy API.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers solar, lunar, planetary, eclipse, positional, and visibility needs comprehensively. However, there is no explicit tool for equinoxes and solstices, which would be a natural inclusion for a cycle-focused astronomy server, creating a minor gap.

Resources

Need Help?