Unpacks the telescope mount from a parked state, enabling movement and tracking for astronomical observations.
Unpark the mount.
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_unpark"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose effects if the mount is already unparked, required state, asynchronous behavior, or return values. The description is too minimal for a mutation action.
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?
Single short sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place. Ideal conciseness for a simple command.
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?
Despite simplicity, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., success indication, side effects, or when it's applicable). A short description can be acceptable, but without output schema or annotations, an agent may need more to understand full impact.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate—no further semantics are needed.
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?
Description is a clear verb-object phrase 'Unpark the mount.' that states exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'nina_mount_park' which performs the opposite action, so the agent can easily differentiate.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when mount is parked vs already unparked, or prerequisites like mount connectivity). The sibling list includes park and unpark but no contextual hints are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.