Open the dome shutter to expose the telescope for astronomical observations.
Open the dome shutter.
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": "nina_dome_open"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'open' without describing side effects (e.g., whether it fails if already open, if it requires confirmation, or any safety considerations). The behavioral transparency is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence. No unnecessary words or fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it could be improved by noting behavior like 'opens the dome shutter if it is not already open' to provide minimal extra context, but as is, it is nearly complete for such a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (0), and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. The tool is parameterless, so this dimension is trivially satisfied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('open') and resource ('dome shutter'), which is specific and unambiguous. Although the description is minimal, it effectively communicates the tool's purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like nina_dome_close (close) and nina_dome_slew (slew).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., dome connected, not already open). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.