search_by_nameSearch the satellite catalog by name substring and return matching orbital elements (TLE / GP data). e.g. "STARLINK", "NOAA", "GPS". Returns up to 50 matches with orbital parameters (inclination, eccentricity, period). Catalog/orbital data, not live tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Satellite name substring, e.g. "STARLINK" or "NOAA". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds context that data is catalog/orbital not live tracking, and mentions 50-result limit, adding 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?
Two sentences cover purpose, examples, result limit, and data nature. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and limitations. Could mention default sort or pagination but not critical.
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?
Single parameter 'name' fully documented in schema with description and examples. Description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what schema 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?
Clearly states searching satellite catalog by name substring, returning orbital elements. Provides examples and result limit. Does not explicitly differentiate from possibly similar sibling 'get_satellite', but resource and action are specific.
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?
Implied usage through examples and result description, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or exclusions.
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.
The tool set mixes several distinct domains (satellite orbital data, Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market analysis, memory management, subscriptions), but within the Pipeworx umbrella there is heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language questions to the same underlying 5,756 tools. An agent could easily misselect between them, especially since ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical.
Many tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_subscriptions, create... none, but compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, subscribe/unsubscribe, remember/recall/forget), yet the naming is inconsistent across the set: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, get_satellite, get_group, recent_alerts, recent_changes, entity_profile, and deep_research do not share a uniform convention. CamelCase appears in polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc. while most others are snake_case, and the satellite tools (get_satellite, get_group, search_by_name) form a distinct sub-pattern that clashes with the Pipeworx meta-tools.
34 tools is on the heavy side, and the effective surface is bloated: there are three variants of ask_pipeworx, four polymarket_* tools, three satellite-specific tools that are unrelated to the server's apparent core purpose, and several meta/utility tools (remember, recall, forget, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, suggest_questions) that could be consolidated or are only tangentially related. The count itself is not extreme, but the scope is muddled: the server claims the name Celestrak (satellite tracking) while the overwhelming majority of tools are for Pipeworx data access and prediction markets, making the tool count feel inappropriate for either purpose.
For the Pipeworx data-access domain, the tool set is quite thorough: natural-language routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiling, entity comparison, claim verification, semantic search, and tool discovery are all present. However, there are notable gaps: the subscription lifecycle lacks an update/resume mechanism, and the satellite domain (the server's namesake) is severely incomplete — only three lookup tools with no live tracking, no group listing beyond a handful of groups, and no clear lifecycle CRUD. The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are minimal but complete for their narrow scope.