goes_xrayGOES X-ray flux history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window | No | 6-hour (default) | 1-day | 3-day | 7-day |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "window": "6-hour"
+ },
+ {
+ "window": "3-day"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "GOES X-ray flux history data",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. But it adds only 'history,' which is a minimal behavioral trait. It does not disclose output characteristics, data source specifics, or any limitations, so it adds little beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is a single three-word phrase with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable, fitting the 'every sentence earns its place' criterion perfectly.
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?
With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description serves mainly to explain the tool's purpose. It does that minimally, but lacks usage context and sibling differentiation. For a simple read-only tool, it is adequate yet leaves room for improvement.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%: the single 'window' parameter is fully described with its allowed values ('6-hour (default) | 1-day | 3-day | 7-day'). The description does not add any additional parameter meaning, but according to the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 identifies the specific resource (GOES X-ray flux) and adds the scope 'history,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling space-weather tools like aurora_forecast or solar_wind. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'get'), making it a noun phrase rather than a full command.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for X-ray flux data.
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.