Get Near Earth Objects (asteroids) from NASA NeoWs. Returns asteroid data including size, hazard status, closest approach distance and velocity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Start date YYYY-MM-DD (default: today) | |
| days | No | Number of days to fetch (1-7, default: 3) | |
| hazardous_only | No | Only return potentially hazardous asteroids (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses what the response contains (size, hazard status, distance, velocity), which is useful, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior for a live third-party API.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the resource clearly front-loaded and the return contents following. Every clause 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 low-complexity read tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it fetches and what it returns. It is nearly complete, with only API-access and rate-limit behavior unaddressed.
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 100%, so all three parameters (date, days, hazardous_only) are already fully documented with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
State a specific verb and resource ('Get Near Earth Objects (asteroids)') and names the data source (NASA NeoWs), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings get_apod and get_space_weather, though the differentiation is implied by subject matter rather than stated.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection. Usage is only inferred from the resource name.
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.