oddsky

case_overview

Summarize a case's series coverage, brightness ranges, Gaia stellar context, and recorded claims and hypotheses to orient investigation.

Instructions

Start here. What the case is, what data exist (per series: span, points, brightness range), the stellar context from Gaia, and the claims and hypotheses recorded so far.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "case": "<case>"
    },
    "name": "case_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`case`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only overview by describing returned content and direct context, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what permissions are needed, or how the case is accessed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant wording. "Start here" comes first and the return-content inventory follows efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an overview tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably explains what content the overview provides. However, it leaves the sole required parameter unexplained and does not clarify output structure or access behavior, so it is only adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has one required parameter, "case", at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains whether it is an ID, name, path, or selected active case. It implies the case is the subject but adds no actionable meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies this as a case overview and enumerates what it returns: case identity, per-series data coverage, Gaia stellar context, and recorded claims/hypotheses. It is distinguishable in content from sibling tools, though it uses an implicit retrieve/describe verb rather than naming an explicit operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Start here" gives strong initial-orientation guidance and implies this should be used before narrower case tools. It does not provide explicit when-not conditions or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.