Skip to main content
Glama

Jpl Ssd

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Close Approaches

close_approaches
Read-onlyIdempotent

NASA/JPL CNEOS — list near-Earth close approaches to Earth in a date range, with miss distance (AU), relative velocity (km/s), and absolute magnitude (size proxy). Keyless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesEnd date (inclusive), YYYY-MM-DD.
limitNoMax rows, default 25, max 100.
startYesStart date (inclusive), YYYY-MM-DD.
max_distanceNoMax miss distance, default "0.05" AU. Accepts lunar distances too, e.g. "10LD".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "end": "2024-12-31",
+    "start": "2024-01-01"
+  },
+  {
+    "end": "2025-06-30",
+    "limit": 50,
+    "max_distance": "10LD",
+    "start": "2025-01-01"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: the source (NASA/JPL CNEOS) and that it is 'keyless' (no API key required). No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is well-structured and front-loaded with source and purpose. Every part (source, action, scope, output fields, keyless) is essential and concisely stated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately hints at the output structure by listing three key fields (miss distance, relative velocity, absolute magnitude). Combined with rich annotations and clear parameters, the description is complete for a list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters (start, end, limit, max_distance). The description does not add new meaning beyond summarizing output fields, so it meets the baseline of 3 without needing to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('list'), the resource ('near-Earth close approaches'), the scope ('to Earth in a date range'), and the output fields (miss distance, relative velocity, absolute magnitude). It distinguishes from sibling tools like impact_risk or get_small_body by focusing specifically on listing approaches with orbital parameters.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for listing close approaches in a date range but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like impact_risk or recent_fireballs. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Jpl Ssd toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap in purpose, especially the ask_pipeworx variants and the polymarket_* tools. An agent would struggle to distinguish between similar functions, increasing the risk of selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use inconsistent conventions: some are snake_case (close_approaches), some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt), and others mix styles (ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research). No clear pattern is maintained across the set.

Tool Count1/5

At 35 tools, the server is bloated and unfocused. The majority of tools are unrelated to the 'Jpl Ssd' domain, which only has 4 relevant tools. The count is far too high for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The JPL SSD coverage is minimal (only 4 tools), missing key functionalities like detailed object queries or bulk downloads. The remaining tools cover unrelated domains, so the surface is both incomplete for its primary domain and cluttered with off-topic tools.

Resources