cone_searchCone search around (RA, Dec).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ra | Yes | RA in decimal degrees. | |
| dec | Yes | Dec in decimal degrees. | |
| max | No | ||
| catalog | Yes | ||
| radius_deg | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "catalog": "I/345/gaia2",
+ "dec": 22.0145,
+ "ra": 83.6287,
+ "radius_deg": 0.5
+ },
+ {
+ "catalog": "V/147/sdss12",
+ "dec": 54.3495,
+ "max": 100,
+ "ra": 210.8024,
+ "radius_deg": 0.1
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Cone search results around specified coordinates",
+ "oneOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "description": "Raw text response (first 4000 chars)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "format": {
+ "description": "Format indicator when JSON parsing fails",
+ "enum": [
+ "raw"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "format",
+ "body"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the behavioral profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context, which is acceptable but not enhanced.
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 very concise (6 words), but it lacks structure and fails to provide essential details. While concise, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.
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 complexity (5 parameters, domain-specific), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a cone search entails, the meaning of parameters, or how it relates to sibling tools.
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 description coverage is 40% (only 'ra' and 'dec' have descriptions). The tool description does not add meaning to the undocumented parameters 'catalog', 'max', and 'radius_deg', which are crucial for usage.
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 'Cone search around (RA, Dec)' clearly indicates the tool performs a cone search given coordinates. It is specific and not a tautology, but it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'query_catalog'.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or restrictions.
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.