Skip to main content
Glama

Nasa Cmr

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Collections

search_collections
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search NASA's Common Metadata Repository for Earth-science dataset collections by keyword, platform (satellite/mission), instrument, time range, or bounding box. ~10k collections covering MODIS, Landsat, Sentinel, VIIRS, GPM, and every NASA DAAC. Sorted by usage. Keyless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 10, max 25).
keywordNoFree-text keyword, e.g. "aerosol", "sea surface temperature", "land cover".
platformNoPlatform (satellite/mission) name, e.g. "Terra", "Landsat-9", "Sentinel-1A", "Suomi-NPP".
instrumentNoInstrument name, e.g. "MODIS", "OLI", "VIIRS", "ASTER".
bounding_boxNoSpatial filter "minLon,minLat,maxLon,maxLat", e.g. "-125,32,-114,42" for California.
temporal_endNoEnd of temporal filter, YYYY-MM-DD.
temporal_startNoStart of temporal filter, YYYY-MM-DD. Collections overlapping the range match.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context: the tool is keyless, sorted by usage, and covers ~10k collections, enhancing beyond annotations without 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 efficiently convey purpose, scope, and key behavioral traits (keyless, sorted). No superfluous information; front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, the description could mention return format (e.g., list of collection metadata). However, it sufficiently covers search intent, filters, and key constraints, making it largely complete for the agent.

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 the description need not repeat parameter details. It lists filter types (keyword, platform, etc.) in the purpose statement, which provides context but does not add meaning beyond schema descriptions.

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 searches NASA's CMR for dataset collections by multiple criteria (keyword, platform, instrument, time, bounding box), specifying the resource and action. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_granules.

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 provides context on sorting and keyless access but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_granules or search_within. Usage guidance is implied but not definitive.

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

All Nasa Cmr 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

The tool set mixes NASA-specific tools with a large number of financial and prediction market tools, causing confusion. Within the non-NASA tools, there is significant overlap (e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, several research tools with vague boundaries).

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but naming patterns are inconsistent: some start with verbs (search_collections, get_collection), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research). There is no uniform verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the count is high. Although it may be appropriate for the underlying domain (data/prediction markets), it is excessive for the server's stated NASA focus, where only 3 tools are relevant.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Nasa Cmr', the tool set is severely incomplete: only three tools cover NASA Earth science (search/granules/collections), lacking any support for missions, datasets, or advanced queries. The non-NASA tools are comprehensive but disconnected from the server name.

Resources