Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses the data source ('Space-Track.org (US Government / Space-Track Terms)'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and return structure ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with details on quality scoring and citation components. This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 efficiently structured into two sentences: the first covers purpose and usage, and the second details source, updates, and return format. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and 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.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral context (source, updates), and return structure, compensating well for any gaps. With annotations and output schema handling safety and return values, no critical information is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (noradId, limit, searchName). The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'Search by NORAD ID or object name', which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Query', 'Search') and resources ('Space-Track.org', 'satellite orbital data (TLE/GP)'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the unique data source and return format. It explicitly mentions the domain ('Space & Astronomy Agent'), making its role distinct within the server's toolset.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for satellite orbital data from Space-Track.org) and how to use it (by NORAD ID or object name). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as other space-related tools like 'space__launch-schedule' or 'space__nasa-asteroids', which slightly limits guidance.

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