AstroMCP

tns_object

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a Transient Name Server object by name to retrieve its position, type, redshift, discovery date, magnitude, reporting group, and internal names.

Instructions

Look up a Transient Name Server object by name, e.g. '2026agtq' or 'AT 2026agtq': position, type, redshift, discovery date/mag, reporting group, internal names.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "tns_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the payload (position, type, redshift, discovery date/mag, reporting group, internal names), but says nothing about miss behavior — what happens if the name is unknown or unresolvable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs verb, resource, example inputs and return fields with no filler. Nothing here needs trimming or reordering.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with annotations and an output schema, the description covers enough to invoke correctly (input format) and to interpret the result (field list). The only real omission is failure/not-found behavior and an explicit pointer to tns_search for partial-name cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does so by giving two concrete accepted forms ('2026agtq' or 'AT 2026agtq'), which resolves a real ambiguity about whether the AT prefix is required — meaningful value beyond the bare 'Name' string field.

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 (look up) and resource (a Transient Name Server object) and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what this yields. It implicitly separates itself from tns_search by emphasizing lookup 'by name', but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 the example name formats, which signal 'use this when you already have a TNS identifier.' However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus tns_search, and no guidance on what to do with an ambiguous or partial name.

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

Deploy Server