Live space data for AI agents - rocket launches, ISS passes, launch news. Free, no auth.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct aspect of space activity: ISS passes, launch news, and upcoming launches. There is no overlap in purpose, so an agent can easily select the right tool for a given query.
All tool names follow a consistent 'get_' + noun phrase pattern (get_iss_passes, get_launch_news, get_next_launches). This predictable naming convention makes the tool set easy to navigate.
With exactly 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped for its purpose of providing space-related information. Each tool contributes a distinct function, and the count is well below the threshold where cognitive overload becomes a concern.
The set covers the primary needs for space enthusiasts: live launch schedules, launch news, and ISS pass predictions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., historical launch data, individual launch details, or satellite tracking), but the core domain is well covered.
get_iss_passesISS pass times for a locationAWhen the International Space Station will pass over a location in the next 3 days: start time (UTC), maximum elevation, duration, and whether the pass is in a good viewing window (evening/pre-dawn). Provide a city name OR latitude+longitude.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Latitude in decimal degrees (-90 to 90), used with lon when no city is given | |
| lon | No | Longitude in decimal degrees (-180 to 180), used with lat when no city is given | |
| city | No | City name, e.g. 'Paris', 'New York' — 550+ major cities known; takes precedence over lat/lon |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| passes | Yes | Upcoming ISS passes above 10° elevation, soonest first (empty when none in the next 3 days) |
| location | Yes | Resolved location label, or 'unknown' when the input couldn't be resolved |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already handle read-only and non-destructive hints, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the time range (next 3 days) and the output fields (start time UTC, max elevation, duration, good viewing window). This enriches what the annotations provide without contradicting them.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose, outputs, and input options without redundant words. It is compact and well-structured, earning a top score for conciseness.
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?
With a complete schema, helpful annotations, and an output schema (per context signals), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its inputs, and its outputs. The tool is simple enough that this description, alongside the structured metadata, is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for lat, lon, and city. The description reinforces the 'city OR lat/lon' relationship that is already encoded in the schema, adding minimal new meaning. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
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?
The description clearly states what the tool does: it provides ISS pass times over a location in the next 3 days, including start time, maximum elevation, duration, and viewing-window status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (launch news, next launches) by focusing on ISS passes rather than launch events.
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?
The description explicitly instructs users to provide a city name OR latitude+longitude, which clarifies input modes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is specific enough that specifying when to use it is somewhat self-evident, so a 4 is warranted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_launch_newsLaunch news & recapsALatest rocket-launch news articles (previews and post-launch recaps) from Cosmik, optionally filtered by a search term (mission, rocket, or provider name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of articles to return (1-10, default 5) | |
| query | No | Search term matched against article titles, e.g. 'Starship', 'Crew', 'Ariane' |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| articles | Yes | Launch articles, most recent launch first |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so safety and mutability are covered. The description adds useful context about the source (Cosmik) and filtering capability, but does not disclose behavior like ordering, defaults beyond schema, or response format, making it adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes all key details (source, article type, optional filter). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and availability of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what is returned, source, and filtering option. There are no significant gaps for this straightforward listing tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic nuance by stating the search term filters by mission, rocket, or provider name, which complements the schema's examples (e.g., 'Starship') and clarifies the intent of the query parameter.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns the latest rocket-launch news articles (previews and post-launch recaps) from Cosmik, with optional filtering. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_iss_passes and get_next_launches, which cover ISS passes and launch schedules.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving news articles, and the sibling names suggest alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others or mention any exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_next_launchesUpcoming rocket launchesALive schedule of upcoming orbital rocket launches (SpaceX, NASA, Rocket Lab, ULA, Arianespace, China…) with liftoff times (UTC), pads, status and a live-tracking link. Optionally filter by provider/rocket name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of launches to return (1-20, default 5) | |
| provider | No | Case-insensitive filter matched against provider and rocket name, e.g. 'SpaceX', 'NASA', 'Rocket Lab' |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| launches | Yes | Upcoming launches, soonest first |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by noting it's a 'Live schedule' (open-world data) and specifying what information is returned (liftoff times, pads, status, live-tracking link). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return details and filtering capability. No redundant information or padding.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, return contents, and filtering option. With annotations and output schema available, no critical context is missing, and sibling differentiation is clear.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with well-described parameters (limit and provider). The description adds slight reinforcement by mentioning the provider/rocket name filter, but does not introduce new semantics beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states it returns live schedules of upcoming orbital rocket launches, listing specific providers and the data included (liftoff times, pads, status, live-tracking link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_iss_passes and get_launch_news, which serve different purposes.
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?
The description implies use for querying upcoming orbital launches with an optional provider/rocket filter, providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but sibling tool names make the distinction obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.