Skip to main content
Glama

Jpl Ssd

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Impact Risk

impact_risk
Read-onlyIdempotent

NASA/JPL CNEOS Sentry — Earth impact risk for asteroids. Pass a designation for one object's cumulative impact probability, Palermo/Torino scale, diameter, and impact window; or omit it to list all currently-tracked objects above an impact-probability threshold. Keyless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoList mode only — max objects, default 25.
designationNoOptional specific object, e.g. "99942" or "2022 KK2". If given, returns that object's risk summary.
min_probabilityNoList mode only — minimum cumulative impact probability, default 1e-4. Ignored if designation is given.

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: +[
+  {
+    "designation": "99942"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 10,
+    "min_probability": 0.0001
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, covering safety. Description adds that it is keyless and sources from NASA/JPL, which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with source and purpose. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and 3 optional parameters, description explains both modes and what is returned per mode. Could mention return format briefly, but complete enough for an AI agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds meaning by specifying that for a single object it returns cumulative impact probability, Palermo/Torino scale, diameter, and impact window, and clarifies list mode limitations for limit and min_probability.

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?

Description clearly states it provides Earth impact risk for asteroids from NASA/JPL CNEOS Sentry. It distinguishes between querying a single object by designation and listing all tracked objects, which differentiates it from siblings like close_approaches.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Description explicitly tells the agent to pass a designation for a single object or omit it for a list, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool, but the clarity of modes is sufficient.

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