Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ProgramComputer

NASA MCP Server

by ProgramComputer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

NASA OSDR study files

nasa_osdr_files
Read-onlyIdempotent

List downloadable data files and links for a NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR) study using its accession number, e.g., 87 or OSD-87.

Instructions

List the data files (with download links) for a NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR) study.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accession_numberYesOSD study accession number, e.g. 87 or OSD-87.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / accession_number / description
      Previous value: -"OSD study accession number (e.g., '87')"New value: +"OSD study accession number, e.g. 87 or OSD-87."
    • addedInput schema / properties / accession_number / pattern
      Added value: +"^(OSD-)?\\d+$"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the one behavioral detail worth knowing (results are file listings with download links), but says nothing about pagination, file counts, or failure modes for unknown accessions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical scoping the return content. Nothing superfluous.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what is returned and how to invoke it. Minor gap in not mentioning behavior for invalid/unknown accession numbers.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the accession format and the OSD- prefix pattern. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (data files for a NASA OSDR study), and adds the useful scope detail that results include download links. No sibling tool covers OSDR study files, so differentiation is inherent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: call it with a study accession when you need that study's files. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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