compositeComposite planet parameter table pscomppars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Non-JSON response body (first 16000 chars) | |
| format | No | Response format (json, csv, or votable) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 50,
+ "query": "pl_eqt > 300"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 25
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Query result from composite planet parameters table",
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "description": "Non-JSON response body (first 16000 chars)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "format": {
+ "description": "Response format (json, csv, or votable)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the table name, missing opportunities to mention rate limits, pagination, or return format.
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 under-specified, not concise. A single sentence naming a table does not efficiently convey tool functionality; every word should add value, and this does not.
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 tool has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema exists, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to specify how the tool behaves, what it returns, or any constraints, making it nearly useless for an AI agent.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'limit' or 'query'. There is no hint about query syntax or default behavior, leaving the agent without essential parameter semantics.
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 'Composite planet parameter table `pscomppars`' names a table but lacks a verb or action. It does not clarify whether the tool queries, lists, or retrieves data, leaving the purpose vague. It is nearly a tautology of the name.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Without context, the agent has no indication of appropriate scenarios 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.