planetsQuick planet search against the ps (planetary systems) table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1-10000 (default 25). | |
| query | No | Optional WHERE clause (without "WHERE"). |
| 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 / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "pl_mass > 5.0"
- },
- {
- "query": "sy_dist < 50"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "pl_massj > 5.0"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "sy_dist < 50"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "pl_mass > 5.0"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "sy_dist < 50"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Query result from planetary systems (ps) 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal context (the table name and 'quick'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return limits, pagination, or special query syntax beyond what the schema provides. No contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.
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's simplicity, the presence of a complete schema, output schema, and strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools (e.g., when to prefer `planets` over `kepler_candidates`), which slightly reduces completeness.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for both `limit` and `query`. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully documents the parameters, so the baseline of 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 identifies the tool as a search against the `ps` (planetary systems) table with the verb 'search,' which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `kepler_candidates` or `microlensing`, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
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. The description simply states it is a 'quick' search, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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.