Compute an ideal two-body Keplerian orbit around one solar mass. Time starts at periapsis; distances use AU and time uses days. This model is not a real celestial ephemeris.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eccentricity | Yes | ||
| elapsed_days | Yes | ||
| semi_major_au | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orbit | Yes | ||
| engine | Yes | ||
| method | Yes | ||
| position | Yes | ||
| elapsed_ms | Yes | ||
| provenance | Yes | ||
| distance_au | Yes | ||
| period_days | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "semi_major_au",
- "eccentricity",
- "elapsed_days"
-]New value: +[
+ "eccentricity",
+ "elapsed_days",
+ "semi_major_au"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "distance_au": {
+ "maximum": 60,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "elapsed_ms": {
+ "maximum": 1000000000000,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "engine": {
+ "const": "rust-cpu",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "method": {
+ "maxLength": 1024,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "orbit": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "x": {
+ "maximum": 60,
+ "minimum": -60,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "y": {
+ "maximum": 60,
+ "minimum": -60,
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "x",
+ "y"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 241,
+ "minItems": 241,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "period_days": {
+ "maximum": 61000,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "position": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "x": {
+ "maximum": 60,
+ "minimum": -60,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "y": {
+ "maximum": 60,
+ "minimum": -60,
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "x",
+ "y"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "provenance": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "client": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "version"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "identity_source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "model": {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ "server": {
+ "const": "scorecompute",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tool": {
+ "const": "compute_orbit",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tool",
+ "server",
+ "client",
+ "identity_source",
+ "model"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "distance_au",
+ "elapsed_ms",
+ "engine",
+ "method",
+ "orbit",
+ "period_days",
+ "position",
+ "provenance"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds substantive context the annotations cannot: the periapsis time origin, the AU/day unit system, and the caveat that results are not a real ephemeris, which manages expectation about output fidelity.
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?
Three short sentences, fully front-loaded: the core action first, then conventions, then the limitation caveat. Zero filler and no repetition of structured fields.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description adequately covers the model's conventions and its fidelity limits for a deterministic simulation tool; only the eccentricity parameter's semantics remain thin against the schema.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It supplies units and time origin that map onto semi_major_au and elapsed_days, but says nothing about eccentricity's meaning or the 0–0.9 bound, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in prose.
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?
States a specific verb (Compute) and a precise resource (ideal two-body Keplerian orbit around one solar mass). The explicit 'not a real celestial ephemeris' clause distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_ephemeris and assimilate_observation.
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 by contrasting the idealized model with a real ephemeris, which hints at when to pick it over check_ephemeris, but it never names an alternative or states an explicit condition for selection. Conventions (periapsis start, AU/days) are given, but that is setup, not routing guidance.
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.