kepler_candidatesKepler Object of Interest (KOI) candidate table.
| 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: +[
+ {
+ "query": "koi_disposition = 'CONFIRMED'"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 100,
+ "query": "koi_period > 100"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Query result from Kepler Object of Interest 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 true, and destructiveHint false, which the description merely echoes by implying a read-only table. No additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, filtering capabilities, result set size) is provided beyond the 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?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks essential details. It is front-loaded but under-specified, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
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?
Despite the presence of an output schema (reducing the need to explain return values), the description is incomplete: it does not explain the purpose of the two parameters, nor does it provide usage guidance or behavioral context. For a tool with 2 optional parameters, this is insufficient.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' or 'query' parameters. The schema examples provide some hints, but the description adds no meaning to interpret these parameters.
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 'Kepler Object of Interest (KOI) candidate table' is a noun phrase that identifies the resource but does not state what action the tool performs (e.g., query, list, search). It is distinguishable from siblings like 'planets' but lacks a specific verb. This is adequate but not explicit.
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 such as 'planets' or 'microlensing'. The description offers no context for appropriate use cases or exclusion criteria.
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.