get_iss_locationFetch the International Space Station's current latitude, longitude, and Unix timestamp from the Open Notify API. No inputs required; returns a real-time position fix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | ISS latitude coordinate | |
| longitude | Yes | ISS longitude coordinate | |
| timestamp | Yes | Unix timestamp of observation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "latitude": {
+ "description": "ISS latitude coordinate",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "longitude": {
+ "description": "ISS longitude coordinate",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "timestamp": {
+ "description": "Unix timestamp of observation",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "latitude",
+ "longitude",
+ "timestamp"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value by revealing the external Open Notify API source and the real-time nature of the data, which are useful behavioral traits not captured in 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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and include key notes on input and output. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given zero parameters, a comprehensive set of annotations, and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's function and constraints. It adds the important context of using an external API, which rounds out the picture.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description explicitly reinforces this with 'No inputs required', and the empty schema confirms it. Nothing more is needed.
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 clearly states the tool fetches the ISS's current latitude, longitude, and Unix timestamp from a named API, using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools.
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 notes that no inputs are required and that it returns a real-time position fix, making the primary use case obvious. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's uniqueness in the sibling list makes that less critical.
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.