neo_watchNear-Earth objects for today (astronomy, not UAP).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| neo | No | ||
| note | No | ||
| citations | Yes | ||
| provenance | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / doctrineRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / neoAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / noteAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / provenance / properties / neverAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "citations",
+ "provenance"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety is clear. The description adds the note '(astronomy, not UAP)' which clarifies the scope (avoids confusion with UFO/UAP domains). This adds value beyond annotations.
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?
A single sentence with a parenthetical clarification—extremely concise and front-loaded with purpose. Every word is earned; no fluff.
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 0 parameters, a clear description, and an output schema present, the tool definition is fairly complete. The description doesn't detail return values, but the output schema covers that. Could mention the data source or reliability briefly, but overall sufficient.
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 tool has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so no additional parameter meaning is needed. The description does not need to compensate, earning a baseline of 4 due to schema coverage, but since there are no parameters, a 3 is adequate as there is nothing to add.
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 lists near-Earth objects for today, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'iss_passes' or 'nasa_apod'. However, it doesn't differentiate from tools like 'object_lookup' or 'first_skies' which could overlap in purpose.
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 today's NEO data, but there are no explicit guidelines on when to use this vs alternatives like 'object_lookup' (which may cover historical or broader objects). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.