objectQuery by object name (resolved via SIMBAD/NED).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| catalog | No | Optional catalogue id; default queries all. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "Sirius"
+ },
+ {
+ "catalog": "I/345/gaia2",
+ "name": "M31"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Object name query results (resolved via SIMBAD/NED)",
+ "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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that resolution is via SIMBAD/NED, which is useful context but does not disclose further behavioral traits.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose. No wasted words, though it could benefit from a bit more detail.
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 simple 2-parameter tool and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits details like pagination or behavior on no results.
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 description adds little meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'object name' but does not explain input formats or valid catalog IDs. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 verb 'Query' and resource 'object name', and mentions the resolution via SIMBAD/NED. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'resolve_entity' or 'catalogs'.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
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.