Cosmik — Live Space Data

ISS pass times for a city

get_iss_passes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Predicts when the International Space Station will pass over a city in the next 3 days, showing start times, maximum elevation, duration, and viewing window for 550+ cities.

Instructions

When the International Space Station will pass over a city in the next 3 days: next pass start time (UTC and local), maximum elevation, duration, and whether it falls in a good viewing window. 550+ major world cities supported (city directory: gocosmik.com/iss-over).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "city": "<city>"
    },
    "name": "get_iss_passes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	Yes	City name, e.g. 'Paris', 'New York', 'São Paulo' — matched against 550+ major cities

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral details about the data returned (times, elevation, duration) and scope (next 3 days, city directory). No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific details. Every sentence adds value and there is no waste.

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?

Given the single parameter, absence of output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its constraints (next 3 days, supported cities). No gaps.

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?

The single parameter 'city' has 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (examples, 550+ cities), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: showing when the ISS will pass over a city in the next 3 days, including start time, elevation, duration, and viewing window. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (launch news, next launches) by focusing on pass times.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use (for ISS pass times for a city) and provides context (next 3 days, 550+ cities). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools cover launches and news, making the usage clear.

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

Deploy Server