Skip to main content
Glama

Meteors

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Neo Feed

get_neo_feed
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get near-Earth objects passing Earth during a date range (e.g., "2024-01-01" to "2024-12-31"). Returns asteroid names, sizes, velocities, miss distances, and hazard status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_dateYesEnd date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Maximum 7-day range from start_date (e.g. "2025-01-07").
start_dateYesStart date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. "2025-01-01").

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
element_countYesTotal number of near-Earth objects in the date range
near_earth_objectsYesArray of near-Earth objects with close approach data

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "element_count": {
+      "description": "Total number of near-Earth objects in the date range",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "near_earth_objects": {
+      "description": "Array of near-Earth objects with close approach data",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "close_approaches": {
+            "description": "Array of close approach data",
+            "items": {
+              "properties": {
+                "date": {
+                  "description": "Close approach date",
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "miss_distance_au": {
+                  "description": "Miss distance in AU",
+                  "type": "number"
+                },
+                "miss_distance_km": {
+                  "description": "Miss distance in kilometers",
+                  "type": "number"
+                },
+                "orbiting_body": {
+                  "description": "Body being orbited (e.g., Earth)",
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "velocity_km_h": {
+                  "description": "Relative velocity in km/h",
+                  "type": "number"
+                }
+              },
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "date": {
+            "description": "Date of the approach event",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "diameter_km_max": {
+            "description": "Maximum estimated diameter in kilometers",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "diameter_km_min": {
+            "description": "Minimum estimated diameter in kilometers",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "NASA JPL object ID",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Name/designation of the asteroid",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "potentially_hazardous": {
+            "description": "Whether the object is potentially hazardous",
+            "type": "boolean"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "element_count",
+    "near_earth_objects"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "end_date": "2025-01-07",
+    "start_date": "2025-01-01"
+  },
+  {
+    "end_date": "2024-12-07",
+    "start_date": "2024-12-01"
+  }
+]
  3. 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the return data (asteroid names, sizes, velocities, etc.), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present, and the description aligns with the read-only nature of the tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and scope, and the second enumerates return fields. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics via schema, and return field summary. No additional information is needed for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 and examples for both parameters. The description adds a date range example ('2024-01-01' to '2024-12-31') but does not provide significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves near-Earth objects passing Earth during a date range. It lists specific returned fields (names, sizes, velocities, miss distances, hazard status), distinguishing it as a focused NEO feed tool. Although sibling tools like get_close_approaches exist, the description is sufficiently specific to convey its unique purpose.

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 obtaining NEO data over a date range but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_close_approaches. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is given, 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 Meteors 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.

Resources