Query the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) by object name to retrieve astronomical object information for research and analysis.
Query NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) for object information by name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Output language | en |
| object_name | Yes | Object name (e.g. "M31", "NGC 1068", "Arp 220") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing beyond the basic action: no return format, no data coverage, no rate limits, and notably omits NED's specific focus on extragalactic objects, which is critical context.
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?
A single, efficient sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded but somewhat under-specified for the tool's capabilities.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is barely sufficient. It does not explain what 'object information' includes, nor does it scope NED as an extragalactic database, leaving the agent to infer from world knowledge.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with examples and enum values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema; 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?
States a specific verb (query) and resource (NED) with scope 'by name'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling name-lookup tools like simbad_query or vizier_query, which an agent could confuse with it.
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 implies usage through 'by name,' but gives no guidance on when to prefer NED over sibling astronomical databases, nor any exclusions. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.