get_moon_phaseReturns tonight's moon phase for Sedona, AZ — illumination percent, phase name, and a 7-day lunar calendar. Perfect for stargazing and outdoor planning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date YYYY-MM-DD (default today) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| today | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| location | Yes | ||
| next_7_days | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the return of a 7-day calendar but does not clarify that the 'tonight's' phrasing is misleading since the 'date' parameter can specify any date. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs are disclosed.
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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core functionality and use case. Every word serves a purpose without 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 (one optional parameter, safe, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main return values. However, it does not mention that the location is fixed to Sedona, AZ, and the 'tonight's' phrasing could confuse when a different date is specified.
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 the single optional 'date' parameter, which is well-described in the input schema. The description does not mention the parameter or add any semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the tool returns 'tonight's moon phase for Sedona, AZ — illumination percent, phase name, and a 7-day lunar calendar.' This includes a specific verb, resource, and scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_stargazing_conditions or get_weather.
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 phrase 'Perfect for stargazing and outdoor planning' suggests appropriate contexts but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like get_stargazing_conditions or get_sun_times. No exclusions or specific use cases are provided.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap in areas like listener management (get_listener_profile, get_or_create_listener, register_listener, update_listener_preference, log_listener_history) and alerts (get_emergency_alerts, get_nws_alerts, get_fire_restrictions, get_wildfire_perimeters). This can cause confusion for an agent selecting the appropriate tool.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but verbs are inconsistent: 'get_', 'search_', 'submit_', 'log_', 'update_', 'register_', 'get_or_create_'. The listener management tools have varying verbs, and there is a mix of specific and generic names. The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.
At 45 tools, the server is overloaded for its stated purpose as a radio station. It covers many unrelated domains (emergency alerts, hiking, chakras, etc.), which would be better split into separate, focused servers. The tool count feels excessive and unfocused.
While the radio-related tools (now playing, requests, schedule, listener management) cover core functionality, the inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., hiking trails, chakras, sports scores) dilutes the server's purpose. There are obvious gaps in radio-specific features (e.g., no tool for playlist management or DJ scheduling) but an overabundance of peripheral tools.