Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nina-mcp

nina-mcp

by anarcoiris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

nina_mount_info

Retrieve comprehensive mount status including RA/Dec, altitude/azimuth, tracking, parked/homed, slewing state, and site coordinates.

Instructions

Get full mount status: RA/Dec, altitude/azimuth, tracking state, parked/homed state, slewing state, site coordinates, and more.

Tool call template

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_mount_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It effectively indicates a read-only operation by listing 'get full mount status' and detailed fields. However, it does not mention potential staleness or connection requirements, though these are minor for a simple info tool.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get full mount status') and lists key fields. Every phrase is meaningful; no wasted words.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential output fields. The phrase 'and more' is slightly vague but acceptable. For a status info tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description adds value by detailing what the output includes (RA/Dec, altitude/azimuth, etc.), which guides the agent on expected information. This justifies the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving full mount status. It lists specific fields (RA/Dec, altitude/azimuth, tracking state, etc.), distinguishing it from other mount tools that perform actions like parking or slewing. No sibling tool serves the same info-only purpose.

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?

The description implies using this tool when mount status is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like nina_get_all_equipment_info. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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