get_past_launchesGet recent past SpaceX launches sorted by date descending. Returns name, date (UTC), status, and success for each launch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of launches to return (default 10, max 100) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | No | ||
| _source | No | ||
| launches | No | Array of past launches | |
| _fetched_at | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the sorting order (descending) and the exact fields returned (name, date UTC, status, success), which is meaningful for an agent.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains zero fluff. Every word adds value: the action, the sorting, and the return fields are all stated efficiently.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, scope (recent past), ordering, and return fields, and the annotations cover safety concerns, leaving no major gaps.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, with a clear description of default and max. The description does not add anything about the parameter, so it relies on the schema as expected; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get recent past SpaceX launches sorted by date descending' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_latest_launch and get_next_launch by focusing on 'past launches' and describing the return fields.
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 clear context: it returns recent past launches, sorted descending, with specific fields. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the wording implies this is for historical/recent launches rather than next/latest, which is sufficient for a simple read-only tool.
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.