oddsky

open_case

Create a new astronomical case for any resolvable star name and automatically fetch its Gaia, NEOWISE, AAVSO, ZTF, ASAS-SN, and TESS data.

Instructions

Open a new case on any star by name (SIMBAD/AAVSO resolvable) and fetch its data from Gaia, NEOWISE, AAVSO, ZTF, ASAS-SN and TESS. Takes a minute or two.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "open_case"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`title`	No
`fetch_data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well on two points: it discloses that the name is resolved via SIMBAD/AAVSO and that the operation is slow ("a minute or two"), which is real latency information. It omits that this is a persistent write creating a case, what happens if the name is unresolvable, and whether re-opening an existing case duplicates it.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the latency caveat is a single useful clause at the end.

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 three-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much open: two parameters are unexplained and the agent cannot tell what is returned (a case identifier?) or how failures surface.

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 coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "By name" covers the required name parameter, and "fetch its data" implicitly maps to fetch_data, but neither the default-true behavior nor the ability to skip fetching is mentioned, and the title parameter is never referenced.

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 verb and resource ("Open a new case on any star") plus the concrete consequence (fetching data from six named surveys). It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like list_cases or case_overview, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for analyzing a new star. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no note on what to do if the case already exists, and no named alternative.

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