Query JPL's Small-Body Database for asteroid and comet orbital and physical parameters by name or designation, enabling astronomical research and data analysis.
Query JPL Small-Body Database for asteroid/comet orbital and physical data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Output language | en |
| phys | No | Include physical parameters | |
| target | Yes | Target small body name or designation (e.g. "Ceres", "433", "1P/Halley") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, return format, or pagination. The only hint is that it queries orbital and physical data, but no details on how those are returned or what happens on invalid targets.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.
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?
For a query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least mention expected return values or behavioral traits. It does not explain what data is returned, how it's structured, or any prerequisites. The description is too thin for a tool that likely returns complex orbital data.
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 already documents all parameters (target, phys, lang) with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Query JPL Small-Body Database for asteroid/comet orbital and physical data'. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., jpl_horizons, exoplanet_query) by naming the specific database and data type. It could be slightly more specific about what fields are returned, but the purpose is clear.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jpl_horizons or exoplanet_query. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.