Skip to main content
Glama

search_space_station_authorizations

Read-only

Search the FCC Approved Space Station List (SSAL): U.S.-licensed space stations and foreign-licensed ones approved for U.S.

Instructions

Search the FCC Approved Space Station List (SSAL): U.S.-licensed space stations and foreign-licensed ones approved for U.S. market access, by operator, system, licensing administration, call sign, entity, orbit type (is_ngso), foreign licensing (foreign) and grant (granted). Each row carries us_market_access (granted and foreign). Every response includes total, the full match count; set count_only=true to skip the rows. Use for 'how many foreign NGSO systems have U.S. market access?' (is_ngso=true, foreign=true, granted=true, count_only=true) or 'is Telesat's system on the SSAL?'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax rows returned (default 50, max 500). total always reports the full match count regardless of limit; rows cannot be paged. Output keeps the rows that fit in about 40 KB and says how many it left out
systemNoSubstring match on system name
foreignNotrue for systems licensed by an administration other than the United States, false for U.S.-licensed systems (and rows with no licensing administration)
grantedNotrue for rows with an entry in the list's Grant column, false for rows without. The FCC fills it for U.S.-licensed systems too, so U.S. market access is granted=true with foreign=true
is_ngsoNotrue for NGSO systems, false for GSO
operatorNoSubstring match on operator name
call_signNoFCC call sign (exact match, case-insensitive)
entity_idNoFilter by resolved operator entity UUID
count_onlyNoReturn only total (the full match count), no rows. Use for any 'how many' question
licensing_adminNoSubstring match on licensing administration (e.g. Canada, United Kingdom)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond readOnlyHint: every response includes total, count_only skips rows, rows cannot be paged, and output truncates around 40 KB with a count of omitted rows. It also explains the derived us_market_access flag. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loads the resource and filter list, then moves to row semantics, count behavior, and examples. The filter enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema but still useful for scanning, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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 no output schema, the description covers the return shape (total, rows, truncation behavior) and provides example invocations. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the derived us_market_access relationship (granted + foreign) and reinforces count_only and filter combinations; the filter list largely restates schema fields, but the added row-level semantics justify a 4.

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 (search) and resource (FCC Approved Space Station List/SSAL), and defines the data scope: U.S.-licensed stations plus foreign-licensed ones approved for U.S. market access. The resource is distinct from sibling tools like search_satellites and search_ground_stations even without naming them.

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 two concrete example queries ('how many foreign NGSO systems have U.S. market access?' and 'is Telesat's system on the SSAL?') and ties count_only=true to 'how many' questions. It does not name alternative tools or state when to avoid this one, so usage is clear but not exhaustive.

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