Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Retrograde MCP

Retrograde MCP

by Griboedow
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_daily_briefing

Generate a daily astrological briefing for software teams: planetary status, lunar phase, space weather, risk score, and one actionable recommendation.

Instructions

Generate a morning cosmic standup: a concise summary of today's astrological conditions for software teams.

Covers planetary status, lunar phase, space weather, overall risk score, and a single actionable recommendation for the day.

Data sources: NASA JPL DE421 ephemeris + NOAA SWPC Kp-index.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_daily_briefing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions data sources but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 very concise with three sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and efficient in conveying essential information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality and data sources. It is complete for a no-parameter tool.

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 no parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it generates a 'morning cosmic standup' summarizing astrological conditions for software teams, listing covered aspects (planetary status, lunar phase, space weather, risk score, recommendation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that provide individual components.

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?

The description provides context (morning, for software teams) implying when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It gives clear usage context without exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools