get_next_launchGet the next upcoming SpaceX launch. Returns launch name, scheduled date (UTC, may be TBD), mission details, rocket, and launch pad.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Launch name | |
| rocket | Yes | Rocket ID | |
| details | Yes | Launch details | |
| date_utc | Yes | Launch date in UTC |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that the scheduled date is in UTC and may be TBD, alerting the agent to potential data uncertainty.
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 short sentences that front-load the action and results, with no redundant words. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description fully captures scope, return content, and a key data-quality caveat. No other behavioral expectations are needed.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to add beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies, as no parameter description 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 explicitly states 'Get the next upcoming SpaceX launch' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the returned fields (launch name, date, mission details, rocket, pad). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_latest_launch and get_past_launches.
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 implies usage for retrieving the next upcoming launch, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools (e.g., get_latest_launch or get_past_launches). No usage conditions or exclusions are provided, leaving the when-to-use guidance implicit.
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.
The server is named 'spacex' but contains a vast number of tools unrelated to SpaceX, such as polymarket arbitrage, npm package scanning, and claim validation. Users and agents would struggle to determine whether this server is for SpaceX data or general-purpose queries.
The SpaceX-specific tools follow a consistent 'get_' pattern, but the majority of tools use varied naming conventions (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research', 'remember', 'subscribe'). No unifying pattern across the set.
36 tools is a moderately large count, not extreme. However, many tools are unrelated to the server's namesake, making the set feel bloated and unfocused. The count could be trimmed to improve coherence.
For the SpaceX domain, the coverage is decent (launches, rockets, crew, Starlink). But the server's purpose is unclear—there are glaring gaps in a unified vision, as the Pipeworx tools are not integrated into a coherent SpaceX theme.