oddsky

neighbors

Find Gaia DR3 sources near a target to compare separation, brightness difference, and fraction of the target’s flux; blind mode removes source identities.

Instructions

Gaia DR3 sources near the target: separation, brightness difference, and fraction of the target's flux. In blind mode, identities are removed.

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": "neighbors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`case`	Yes
`radius_arcsec`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the result (three named quantities) and a notable behavioral trait: identities are stripped in blind mode. It omits whether the call is read-only, any result-count or radius limits, and what happens when no sources fall within the search area.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and no filler. It leans toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing written is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the definition is thin. The return-field list partially compensates for the missing output schema, but the required 'case' parameter and the meaning of blind mode are both left unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters, and it explains neither. 'Near the target' vaguely gestures at a search radius but never mentions radius_arcsec, its default of 30, or what 'case' refers to; the agent is left to infer both from bare schema titles.

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?

States a specific resource (Gaia DR3 sources) and scope (near the target) plus the returned quantities (separation, brightness difference, flux fraction), which lets an agent distinguish it from catalog-color siblings like wise_color or ir_excess. It never names a sibling or an explicit boundary, so differentiation is inferred 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance; the agent must guess that this is the tool for checking contamination or blending near a target. 'In blind mode' is mentioned but never explained as to what triggers it or when it applies, so it functions as a dangling condition rather than guidance.

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