sa-ecosystem-node

List star systems

list_star_systems

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read star systems from the z.ink test realm via @aephia/atlas-kit for read-only Star Atlas-inspired data inspection; set a limit to control how many systems are returned.

Instructions

Read star systems from the z.ink test realm via @aephia/atlas-kit. Read-only. Inspired by Star Atlas; not an ATMTA service.

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": "list_star_systems"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many systems to return. Default 100.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the 'Read-only' sentence is redundant. What the description does add is genuinely useful: the data comes from a test realm and a third-party kit, and it is 'not an ATMTA service' — an agent needs that provenance caveat before trusting results. No pagination or ordering behavior is disclosed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The 'Read-only' sentence duplicates annotation data, which is the only wasted line.

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 one-parameter list tool with rich annotations this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a star system record contains or how results are ordered. The provenance caveats are covered; the return shape is not.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'limit' including the default of 100 and the 1-500 range. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read star systems') plus the data source (z.ink test realm via @aephia/atlas-kit), which tells an agent exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools like list_categories or galaxy_overview, but the resource noun is distinct enough to route on.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how it relates to galaxy_overview or other discovery tools. The only hint is the 'test realm' note, which implies this is not production data, but the agent must infer that.

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