Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Viventine-Space

orbit-sentinel-mcp

by Viventine-Space
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

search_positions

Read-only

Search LLM-extracted policy arguments across FCC, ITU, UNOOSA, and FAA filings; filter by docket, stance, argument type, target party, filer, or date to answer who opposed or supported a proposal.

Instructions

Search LLM-extracted policy arguments across COMMENT / REPLY / PETITION filings. Filter by docket, overall stance, argument type, target party, filer, or filing date. Use this to answer questions like 'who opposed X?', 'what did SpaceX argue in 25-306?', 'which filings support modular satellite licensing?'. Returns one row per (filing, argument).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoWords to find in argument text or executive summaries: every word must appear (in any order), not as an exact phrase
filerNoSubstring match on the filing party's canonical name
limitNoMax results (default 25, max 200)
docketNoFilter by docket number, e.g. 25-306 (also accepts 'IB Docket No. 25-306', RM-11348, FAA-2024-2006)
stanceNoFilter by overall stance: support|oppose|qualified_support|qualified_opposition|informational
positionNoFilter by per-argument position: support|oppose|modify|neutral
filed_afterNoOnly arguments from filings filed on/after this date (YYYY-MM-DD)
filed_beforeNoOnly arguments from filings filed on/before this date (YYYY-MM-DD)
target_partyNoSubstring match on target_party (the entity being addressed or opposed)
argument_typeNoFilter by argument type: legal|technical|economic|policy|procedural

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / docket / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by docket number (e.g. '25-306')"New value: +"Filter by docket number, e.g. 25-306 (also accepts 'IB Docket No. 25-306', RM-11348, FAA-2024-2006)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / filed_after
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only arguments from filings filed on/after this date (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / filed_before
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only arguments from filings filed on/before this date (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / q / description
      Previous value: -"Substring search across argument text and executive summaries"New value: +"Words to find in argument text or executive summaries: every word must appear (in any order), not as an exact phrase"
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: data is LLM-extracted and results are returned as one row per (filing, argument), not one row per filing. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination behavior, or result completeness.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then filters, then concrete usage examples, then return granularity. Every sentence adds value; the examples earn their space by showing realistic query patterns.

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 10-parameter search tool with full schema descriptions and read-only annotations, this is largely complete: it explains the data source, filtering dimensions, usage examples, and result grain. It lacks detail on returned fields and pagination/ordering, which matters somewhat because there is no output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all ten parameters are already documented in detail. The description summarizes several filter categories but omits q and position and adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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+resource: search LLM-extracted policy arguments across COMMENT/REPLY/PETITION filings. The argument-level focus and row-per-argument return distinguish it from sibling filing or entity searches. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete example questions that clarify when the tool is appropriate, including stance, filer, docket, and topic use cases. However, it does not explicitly name when not to use it or which sibling tools to use instead for filing-level or semantic searches.

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