Get sunrise, sunset, and twilight times for any location using US Naval Observatory data. Also returns moonrise and moonset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tz | No | UTC offset in hours (e.g. -5 for EST, 1 for CET). Default: 0 (UTC) | |
| lat | No | Latitude (default: 40.7128 — New York City) | |
| lon | No | Longitude (default: -74.0060 — New York City) | |
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (default: today) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the data source and outputs, but omits details like data freshness, accuracy bounds, required permissions, or that all parameters are optional with defaults.
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 with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional moon info is appended 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?
No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain the return format (e.g., whether times are in local or UTC, what 'twilight times' includes). Given low complexity, it is adequate but could be more complete.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'any location' and implicit date-range, thus baseline score of 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 the tool returns sunrise, sunset, twilight times, plus moonrise/moonset, using US Naval Observatory data. It distinguishes from siblings: get_current_time (current time) and get_moon_phases (phases, not times). Both verb and resource are specific.
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 astronomical event times but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings, nor any context about 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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: get_astronomy handles daily sun/moon times, get_current_time provides current time in any timezone, and get_moon_phases covers moon phases and illumination. There is no functional overlap.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'get_<noun>' with snake_case, making the naming predictable and readable.
With only three tools, the server is lean but covers core time and astronomy queries. The count is at the lower end of reasonable, but not overly thin.
The toolkit covers essential time and astronomy needs (current time, sun/moon times, moon phases), but lacks time zone conversion, planetary data, or specific date queries for astronomy events, representing minor gaps.