Meteors

Get Close Approaches

get_close_approaches

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find near-Earth asteroids making close approaches within 0.05 AU. Returns object name, approach date, miss distance, velocity, and diameter to identify potentially hazardous objects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of close approach records to return (default 10, max 50).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes	Total number of close approach records returned
`close_approaches`	Yes	Array of near-Earth asteroid close approach records

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedMay 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "close_approaches": {
+      "description": "Array of near-Earth asteroid close approach records",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "date": {
+            "description": "Calendar date of the close approach",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "designation": {
+            "description": "Asteroid designation/name",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "distance_au": {
+            "description": "Distance at close approach in AU",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "distance_min_au": {
+            "description": "Minimum distance in AU",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "h_magnitude": {
+            "description": "Absolute magnitude (brightness)",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "jd_time": {
+            "description": "Julian date of the close approach",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "orbit_id": {
+            "description": "Orbit identification number",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "velocity_inf_km_s": {
+            "description": "Infinity velocity in km/s",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "velocity_rel_km_s": {
+            "description": "Relative velocity in km/s",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Total number of close approach records returned",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "count",
+    "close_approaches"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 6, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 10
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 30
+  }
+]

First observedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds the return fields and the 0.05 AU threshold but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the low parameter count and presence of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists key return fields but does not specify the time frame for close approaches, which could be ambiguous.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the 'limit' parameter. It mentions the 0.05 AU distance but that is not a parameter.

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 tool finds near-Earth asteroids making close approaches within 0.05 AU and returns specific fields. It is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like get_neo_feed and get_fireballs.

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 identifying potentially hazardous objects but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_neo_feed. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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

All Meteors tools Inspect

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.