get_small_bodyNASA/JPL Solar System Dynamics — look up an asteroid or comet by name or designation and return its orbit and physical parameters (eccentricity, semi-major axis, MOID, diameter, albedo, NEO/PHA flags). Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Asteroid/comet name or designation, e.g. "Ceres", "433 Eros", "Halley", "2021 PH27". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "Ceres"
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "433 Eros"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint; the description adds the behavioral note 'Keyless' (no API key required) and specifies the output fields. It does not mention rate limits, but the safety profile is well-covered.
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 sentence plus a one-word note ('Keyless'), front-loaded with the source and purpose, with no extraneous information.
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?
The description covers the tool's source, input, and output fields adequately for a simple lookup with one parameter and no output schema, though error handling is omitted.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description's parameter guidance (examples like 'Ceres', '433 Eros') is already in the schema, adding no new meaning. Baseline 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 states the tool looks up asteroids or comets by name/designation and lists specific parameters returned (eccentricity, semi-major axis, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like 'close_approaches' or 'impact_risk'.
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?
The description implies the tool is for fetching small body data but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like 'close_approaches' or 'impact_risk', nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.