Query the NIST Atomic Spectra Database to retrieve spectral line data, filtered by element/ion and wavelength range.
Query NIST Atomic Spectra Database for spectral line data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Output language | en |
| linename | No | Element/ion name (e.g. "Fe II", "H I", "Na") | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to display | |
| max_wavelength | No | Maximum wavelength in Angstroms | |
| min_wavelength | No | Minimum wavelength in Angstroms |
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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, rate limits, or result shape. It only implies a read by using 'Query', which is weak evidence for a tool with zero structured behavioral metadata.
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 sentence with zero filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the usage or behavioral context an agent would benefit from.
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?
Five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description explains nothing about what happens when optional filters are omitted, what the results contain, or how many records come back by default. For a multi-filter query tool with no structured behavioral support, this is under-specified.
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 every parameter (lang, linename, max_results, min/max_wavelength) is already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format hints, unit clarifications, or guidance on optionality beyond what the schema provides.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Query') with a named resource ('NIST Atomic Spectra Database') and the data type ('spectral line data'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It stops short of a 5 because it gives no signal to distinguish it from the sibling 'splatalogue_lines', which serves a very similar spectral-line use case.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With 'splatalogue_lines' in the sibling list covering overlapping spectral-line territory, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap rather than a minor omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.