Skip to main content
Glama

Nasa

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Asteroids

get_asteroids
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get near-Earth asteroids approaching within a date range (max 7 days). Returns size, velocity, and miss distance. Example: get_asteroids({ start_date: "2024-01-01", end_date: "2024-01-07", _apiKey: "DEMO_KEY" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_apiKeyNoNASA API key (optional, defaults to DEMO_KEY)
end_dateYesEnd date in YYYY-MM-DD format (max 7 days after start)
start_dateYesStart date in YYYY-MM-DD format

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asteroidsYesList of near-Earth asteroids (up to 30)
total_countYesTotal count of near-Earth objects in the date range

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns size, velocity, and miss distance, which is consistent and provides extra behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 plus an example, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and constraints, making it highly 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 annotations covering safety and idempotency, the output schema, and the description mentioning return fields, the tool definition is fully complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds value by providing an example call and clarifying the date range constraint. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions, earning a 4.

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 specifies the verb 'get', the resource 'near-Earth asteroids', and the constraints 'within a date range (max 7 days)'. It also lists key return fields, making it distinct from siblings like get_apod or get_mars_photos.

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?

The description states the maximum date range of 7 days and provides an example, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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

All Nasa 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target prediction-market opportunities. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read extensively to avoid selecting the wrong tool within each cluster.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of conventions: get_*/search_* for NASA tools, ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* family prefixes, plus one-off names like entity_profile, bet_research, deep_research, recent_changes, and scan_dependency. There is no consistent verb_noun or family-wide pattern, making tool selection unpredictable despite each individual name being readable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is heavy for a server named Nasa, and only 5 of them are actually NASA-related; the rest form a sprawling general data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription toolkit. The count is borderline defensible for a broad data assistant, but it is clearly unjustified under the server's stated NASA identity.

Completeness3/5

As a general data-research assistant the surface is quite complete: discovery, routing, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, memory, subscriptions, and feedback are all covered. As a NASA server, however, there are notable gaps—no EONET events, Earth observation, exoplanet archive, or TLE/mission-specific data—and the large non-NASA tool surface does not fill those gaps.

Resources