AstroMCP

rubin_recent

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve recent Rubin/LSST objects from a chosen Fink tag over the last N days (max 30), sorted brightest first for quick transient review.

Instructions

Recent Rubin objects in a Fink LSST tag over the last N days (max 30), brightest first. Tags: most_likely_sn, sn_near_galaxy_candidate, extragalactic_new_candidate, extragalactic_lt20mag_candidate, hostless_candidate.

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": "rubin_recent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No		most_likely_sn
`days`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations do not: the 30-day cap, brightest-first ordering, and the enumerated set of valid tags. It does not mention result-size limits or pagination, which keeps it below a 5.

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 action and scope, followed by a compact tag enumeration. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the crucial tag/time-window semantics that the schemas leave undocumented. The only omissions are the parameter defaults, which the agent could otherwise assume were required.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the five valid tag values and states the 30-day maximum for days. It omits the default values (most_likely_sn, 3) and does not explain tag semantics, leaving a small gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: recent Rubin objects from a Fink LSST tag, with the ordering and time window named. It is distinguishable from the sibling rubin_object (single-object lookup) by the word 'recent' and the 'last N days' scoping, though the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'over the last N days (max 30), brightest first' — an agent can infer this is the discovery/listing tool for fresh candidates. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs rubin_object or when-not guidance, and no mention that all parameters are optional with defaults.

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

Deploy Server