EclipseMission

Points along the 2027 path, with totality and cloud

list_eclipse_sites

Read-onlyIdempotent

Points along the path of the 2 August 2027 eclipse for which our oracle computed totality once — towns, capes, peaks, monuments — with the cloud range of two reanalyses at each. Points, not destinations: nothing was priced there and no entry or access was read. Points outside the path carry no totality. No coordinates are taken: the list is fixed, and a place absent from it has not been computed.

Tool call template

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": "list_eclipse_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	name (default) is the order of the file; totality puts the longest first.
`country`	No	Keep one country, by ISO code or English name, whatever the case, e.g. ES or Spain.
`in_path`	No	true keeps points inside the path of totality, false those outside.
`max_cloud_pct`	No	Keep points whose cloud range stays at or under this percentage at its high end.
`min_totality_seconds`	No	Keep points with at least this much totality, in seconds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses provenance and limitations: totality was computed once by an oracle, cloud ranges come from two reanalyses, the list is fixed, absent places were not computed, and points outside the path carry no totality. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone would not provide.

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 front-loads the resource and scope, then adds only high-value clarifications: destination distinction, outside-path behavior, and fixed-list/no-coordinates constraint. No sentence is filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only list tool with full parameter descriptions and strong annotations, the definition is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the exact return shape, though it does indicate the entity types and cloud-range context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds useful interpretation for cloud filtering ('cloud range of two reanalyses') and the in-path/totality relationship, and clarifies that no coordinate parameter exists because the list is fixed.

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 names a specific resource — fixed points along the 2 August 2027 eclipse path with computed totality and cloud ranges — and distinguishes it from destination-oriented siblings by stating these are 'points, not destinations.' An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns and what it does not.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly says when not to use it: 'Points, not destinations: nothing was priced there and no entry or access was read,' which implicitly routes destination-related needs to siblings like get_destination or list_destinations. It also explains the fixed-list constraint, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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

All EclipseMission tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?