Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
astronomy-oracle

astronomy-oracle

by gregario
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

lookup_object

Look up celestial objects by Messier, NGC/IC, or common names. Optionally compute visibility from your location and time.

Instructions

Look up a celestial object by Messier number (e.g. M31), NGC/IC designation (e.g. NGC7000), or common name (e.g. Andromeda Galaxy). Optionally compute visibility from a given location and time.

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": "lookup_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoDate/time in ISO 8601 format (defaults to now)
nameYesObject name, Messier number, NGC/IC designation, or common name
latitudeNoObserver latitude in degrees (-90 to 90)
longitudeNoObserver longitude in degrees (-180 to 180)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses optional visibility computation based on location/time, and no side effects are expected for a read-only lookup.

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 primary purpose, followed by optional behavior. No wasted words.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core functionality well but does not describe the return format or any defaults beyond what's in the schema.

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 100%, but the description adds value by summarizing the object name types and the optional visibility feature, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 looks up a celestial object by various identifiers (Messier, NGC/IC, common name), distinguishing it from siblings like search_objects which likely perform broader searches.

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 usage when you have a known object identifier or need visibility computation, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or differentiate from search_objects.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools