asrs_topicsList the thirty safety topics NASA ASRS Report Sets cover (runway incursions, CFIT, bird strikes, fatigue, icing, NMACs, and so on), each with its report count and when NASA last updated that topic's Report Set. Use before asrs_search to check whether a topic is covered at all and how current it is, so a search returning nothing can be told apart from a topic this pack does not track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine content beyond that: the payload is per-topic report counts and the date NASA last updated each Report Set, which tells the agent what freshness signal it will get back. It does not discuss result size beyond the fixed thirty, but that is a minor gap.
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 with the resource and count front-loaded and the usage rule second; the parenthetical example list is long but earns its place by making coverage recognizable at a glance. 'and so on' is the only slightly loose wording.
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?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema enumeration tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers purpose, payload shape (counts and update dates) and routing versus asrs_search. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — the baseline for a no-param tool applies.
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 and resource ('List the thirty safety topics NASA ASRS Report Sets cover') with scope bounded by the count, and enumerates real examples (runway incursions, CFIT, bird strikes) so the agent knows the domain shape. It is clearly distinct from asrs_search and asrs_report, which it names.
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?
Gives explicit timing ('Use before asrs_search') plus the decision rule it enables: distinguishing a genuinely absent topic from a search that returned nothing. That is a concrete when-to-use plus an implied alternative, not a vague suggestion.
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.