Space Launch & Starlink Tracker

Upcoming launches

upcoming_launches

Read-only

Find upcoming orbital launches worldwide with live countdowns, provider, rocket, pad and status, plus optional search by provider or rocket.

Instructions

Upcoming orbital launches worldwide from Launch Library 2 with live countdowns, provider, rocket, pad and status. Optional search (e.g. 'SpaceX', 'Falcon 9', 'Artemis', 'ISRO').

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": "upcoming_launches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tz`	No	IANA timezone for display, e.g. Africa/Lagos, America/New_York. UTC always shown too.
`limit`	No
`search`	No
`includeRecent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read-only, open-world operation, so the burden is lower. The description adds useful context — the upstream source (Launch Library 2) and the live countdown/status fields returned — but says nothing about pagination, the 25-item cap, or how includeRecent changes results.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and data source, with no filler. Slightly dense, but every clause carries information.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and where it comes from. It is still missing the behavior of includeRecent, the default/max for limit, and any note on result ordering or pagination.

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 only 25% (just tz documented), so the description must compensate. It adds examples for the search parameter ('SpaceX', 'Falcon 9', 'Artemis', 'ISRO'), which is helpful, but limit and includeRecent remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Upcoming orbital launches worldwide') and enumerates the returned fields (countdowns, provider, rocket, pad, status) plus the data source (Launch Library 2). It is clearly distinct from starship_status and satellite_passes, but the plural-vs-singular distinction from the sibling next_launch is left implicit 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 explicit when-to-use guidance or routing advice. The 'Optional search' sentence describes how to invoke the tool, not when to choose it over next_launch, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

Deploy Server