mission_searchMission-scoped search with arbitrary criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| mission | Yes | e.g. "HST", "JWST", "Pan-STARRS", "K2", "Kepler", "GALEX", "TESS" | |
| criteria | Yes | Object of MAST filter columns → values. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Array of observation records matching mission search criteria |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'arbitrary criteria,' indicating flexible filtering, which is a useful behavioral cue. However, it doesn't go beyond what schema and annotations already convey, and it doesn't mention pagination or data source specifics.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately understandable. It's concise without being under-specified to the point of confusion.
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?
For a search tool with a rich input schema and output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the mission-scoped nature and arbitrary criteria, while annotations and schemas cover safety and parameter details. The only missing element is explicit usage guidance, but that is not essential for understanding the tool's function.
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?
The input schema has 67% coverage (mission and criteria described; limit missing). The description's 'arbitrary criteria' adds semantic value to the criteria parameter, explaining it's a flexible object of filter columns/values. This compensates for some of the gap, but limit remains undescribed.
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 'Mission-scoped search with arbitrary criteria' clearly identifies the action (search) and the resource (mission data), and 'mission-scoped' differentiates it from spatially-oriented siblings like cone_search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with other search tools, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.
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 usage context is implied: use when you need to search within a specific mission with flexible criteria. The description does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention alternative tools like cone_search or search_within. This is an implied-usage scenario, not a clear guideline.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all of which query the Pipeworx database with different levels of structure. The detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but the overlap is notable.
All tool names use snake_case consistently, which is good. However, the naming conventions vary: some are descriptive phrases (e.g., ai_visibility_check), others are verb_noun (e.g., list_subscriptions), and some are compound nouns (e.g., entity_profile). Lack of a single pattern reduces consistency slightly.
34 tools is on the higher side for a single server, but it may be justified given the broad scope of Pipeworx data sources. However, the server name 'Mast Nasa' implies a focus on astronomy, yet only a few tools relate to that domain, making the count feel inflated and unfocused.
The tool set is comprehensive for the Pipeworx data platform, covering querying, grounding, entity resolution, comparison, subscriptions, and more. However, for the implied NASA/Mast domain, the surface is severely incomplete with only four astronomy-specific tools, leaving obvious gaps.