Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
satellite-anomaly-mcp

satellite-anomaly-mcp

by Litheshan07
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

simulate_scenario

Simulate satellite fault scenarios (space weather, sensor fault, true anomaly, ADCS tumble) to test anomaly detection and fault isolation.

Instructions

Simulates satellite fault scenarios (space_weather, sensor_fault, true_anomaly, adcs_tumble).

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": {
      "scenario_type": "<scenario_type>"
    },
    "name": "simulate_scenario"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenario_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, output format, or state changes. While 'simulates' suggests a non-destructive activity, it does not confirm whether it returns data, modifies state, or has other implications.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively front-loads the core purpose and lists options in parentheses, all in a compact structure.

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 output schema, the description should explain what the simulation produces or returns. It lacks any mention of output, side effects, or use context, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 description lists the same enum values as the schema, adding context that these are 'satellite fault scenarios'. However, it does not explain the meaning of individual scenario types (e.g., what 'adcs_tumble' entails), leaving the schema's enum as the primary reference.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Simulates satellite fault scenarios') and lists specific scenario types. This verb is unique among sibling tools like 'detect' or 'isolate', which are distinct actions.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without explaining use cases, prerequisites, or 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