Skip to main content
Glama
aiexp1

Tanod MCP server

skypeek: upcoming asteroid close approaches

asteroid_close_approaches
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find upcoming near-Earth asteroid and comet close approaches to Earth within 1-30 days and a chosen miss distance, returning approach time, distance, velocity, magnitude, and diameter.

Instructions

skypeek: List asteroid and comet close approaches to Earth. For space weather use get_space_weather. Returns near-Earth object close approaches to Earth in the next 1-30 days within a miss distance (default 0.05 au, about 19.5 lunar distances): designation, approach time, nominal distance with its 3-sigma range, relative velocity, absolute magnitude and diameter (published or a rough range). Data: NASA/JPL Solar System Dynamics close-approach API (US Government work); no endorsement by NASA or JPL is implied. At most 100 approaches per answer. Not an impact-risk assessment. Cached up to an hour. An upstream outage is a 503 upstream_unavailable (not charged). Typically under 1 s. Price: USD 0.001. Free: 5 skypeek calls per IP per UTC day. Docs: https://tanod.dev/learn/asteroid-close-approach-api.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLook-ahead window in days (1-30).
dist_max_auNoLargest nominal miss distance in au (0.0001-0.2; 0.05 au is about 19.5 lunar distances).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo
noteNo
countNo
errorNoOnly on an error result: an object {code, message}, or the reason string of an x402 PaymentRequired object.
staleNo
cachedNo
sourceNo
truncatedNo
approachesNo
attributionNo
dist_max_auNo
cache_secondsNo
total_matchesNo
dist_max_lunarNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description layers on genuinely additive traits: results cached up to an hour, a 100-result cap, upstream outage mapped to 503 upstream_unavailable with no charge, sub-second latency, price and free-tier limits, and an explicit non-endorsement disclaimer.

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-loaded with purpose and the sibling routing, followed by operational facts (caps, caching, errors, pricing). It is dense and close to a wall of text, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information for a paid, metered API call.

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?

Covers data provenance, freshness, result caps, failure semantics, cost, and latency, and even enumerates return fields despite an output schema existing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly or estimate cost is missing.

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% and both parameters already carry ranges, defaults, and even the au-to-lunar-distance conversion, so the description's restatement ('default 0.05 au, about 19.5 lunar distances') adds nothing new. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all parameter work.

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 and resource ('List asteroid and comet close approaches to Earth') with the scope (next 1-30 days, miss distance threshold). It explicitly names the sibling it is not ('For space weather use get_space_weather'), so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides an explicit alternative with its selecting condition (space weather -> get_space_weather) and a when-not caveat ('Not an impact-risk assessment'). An agent knows both when to reach for this tool and when to look elsewhere.

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