sa-ecosystem-node

Galaxy overview

galaxy_overview

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves read-only star system data from the z.ink test realm, including starbases and summaries of connections and celestial bodies for galaxy activity review.

Instructions

Star systems from the z.ink test realm, with starbases and an activity summary of connections and celestial bodies. Read-only.

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": "galaxy_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the closing 'Read-only' sentence restates structured data rather than adding to it. Nothing is said about pagination of the aggregate summary, result size, or what happens at the 500 limit.

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 short sentences with the resource scope front-loaded. The only waste is the trailing 'Read-only' clause, which duplicates readOnlyHint and could be dropped.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it only gestures at it ('starbases and an activity summary of connections and celestial bodies') without field-level or nesting detail. Adequate to decide roughly what you get, insufficient to know how to consume the response.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions it — no default, no statement that it bounds star systems returned, and no clue whether it caps the embedded starbase or activity data as well. All meaning must be inferred from the name alone.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies a specific resource — star systems with starbases plus an aggregate activity summary — which is more than a bare name. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes this from the sibling 'list_star_systems', leaving the agent to guess whether this is an aggregate view, a superset list, or a differently-scoped call.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no prerequisite, no condition selecting this over 'list_star_systems' or 'get_fleet', and no note that it lacks filtering. Usage is only implied by the word 'overview'.

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