get_moon_phase
Current moon phase, illumination percentage, moonrise/moonset times, and days to next full/new moon. Free.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (defaults to today) |
Current moon phase, illumination percentage, moonrise/moonset times, and days to next full/new moon. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (defaults to today) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety. It mentions 'Free' implying no cost, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. The behavior is implied but not fully transparent.
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 two sentences with no fluff. It lists all key outputs upfront and includes 'Free' as a bonus. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all needed information: what data is returned and that it is free. It is complete for its complexity.
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 a single optional 'date' parameter described as 'Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (defaults to today).' The description adds context about the returned data but not about parameter usage, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Current moon phase, illumination percentage, moonrise/moonset times, and days to next full/new moon.' It uses specific terms and distinguishes from siblings like get_sun_times.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the output list hints at its purpose, there is no guidance on exclusion or context, leaving it adequate but lacking.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the three add_funds tools (5, 10, 20) are redundant and could be a single parameterized tool. There is also slight overlap between get_sun_times and get_weather (both provide sunrise/sunset), which may cause confusion.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb_noun (register_agent, create_wallet_setup) while others use noun_verb (get_balance, add_funds_5). There is no consistent pattern, and the presence of numbered suffixes (add_funds_5, add_funds_10) breaks uniformity.
20 tools is slightly high but reasonable for the domain. The three add_funds tools could be consolidated into one with a parameter, which would reduce clutter without losing functionality.
The tool set covers a broad range of Hawaii conditions (weather, surf, volcano, trails, ocean safety, restaurants). Minor gaps exist (e.g., tide data, specific beach alerts), but overall it provides a solid coverage for its intended purpose.