Skip to main content
Glama
EmiRoberti77

NASA MCP Server

by EmiRoberti77
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one retrieves a NASA picture of the day, the other retrieves the current date. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Both names are in camelCase, but their stylistic patterns differ: 'nasaPicOfDayTool' is a noun phrase with a 'Tool' suffix, while 'getCurrentDate' follows a verb_noun imperative. This inconsistency in naming convention across the small set makes it less coherent.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a domain as broad as NASA data. The count is borderline, hinting at an incomplete or minimal implementation rather than a well-scoped set.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a NASA MCP server. Many obvious capabilities such as Mars rover photos, near-earth object tracking, or astronomy data are missing, leaving the server with only a trivial utility and a date function.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get todays date' and does not disclose whether the date is local or UTC, whether it includes time, or what format is returned. For a read-only tool this is minimally transparent but lacks important behavioral details.

    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?

    The description is a single short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to read. However, the typo 'todays' and the lack of any elaboration prevent a perfect score for structure, though brevity is a plus.

    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?

    The tool is extremely simple, so the description is minimally adequate, but without an output schema, the agent does not know what return shape to expect. Key contextual details like date format and timezone are missing, making it insufficient for full autonomous invocation.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    The tool has zero parameters, and per the baseline, 0 params gets a score of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist, and the schema already confirms an empty object. No additional parameter information is required.

    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 states the tool gets today's date using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool (nasaPicOfDayTool) since that is obviously about NASA pictures, not dates. However, it is vague about what format or timezone the date is in, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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

    Usage Guidelines1/5

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

    No guidance is provided on when this tool should be used over alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusionary conditions. The sibling tool is unrelated but no explicit comparison is made.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and gives no details about the return format (e.g., URL, image bytes, metadata), potential side effects, or error behavior. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

    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?

    The description is a single sentence with no filler words, effectively front-loaded. It is concise, though perhaps too terse to convey necessary details, which slightly reduces its value.

    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?

    With no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description should at least mention what the result looks like or that the date is optional. It does neither, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent that needs to invoke it correctly.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The schema provides 100% description coverage for the 'date' parameter with format guidance. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

    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 'get the NASA picture of the day' clearly states a specific action and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling tool getCurrentDate. However, it does not mention the optional date parameter, slightly narrowing the scope implied by the name.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs the sibling getCurrentDate. The intended context is implied by the name, but there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

ts_mcp_nasa MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ts_mcp_nasa MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/EmiRoberti77/ts_mcp_nasa'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server