get_rocketsList SpaceX rocket configurations (Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Starship, …). Returns name, family, reusability, maiden flight, launch cost, launch/success counts, and success rate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _source | No | ||
| rockets | No | Array of SpaceX rockets | |
| _fetched_at | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the exact return fields (name, family, reusability, etc.), which informs the agent about the data shape beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.
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 of concise, high-signal content. Every word adds value: it identifies the resource, gives examples, and lists output fields. 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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description fully covers the necessary information. It includes the specific data fields, making the tool's behavior clear and self-sufficient.
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 the baseline is 4. The description clearly states what the tool returns without needing parameter-level explanations, as there is nothing to configure.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SpaceX rocket configurations'). It includes concrete examples (Falcon 1, Falcon 9, etc.) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_latest_launch or get_past_launches, which focus on launches rather than rocket configurations.
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 the tool is for retrieving rocket configuration data, not launch events, and names the specific data fields returned. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, though the scope is clear from the context.
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.