Astronomer MCP Server

get_celestial_body

Retrieve a celestial body's details, structured themes, and associated star system or cosmic structure by ID to support astrophysics research and data analysis.

Instructions

Retrieve details of a celestial body including its structured themes and associated star system/cosmic structure.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_celestial_body"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Celestial Body ID
`include_embedding`	No	Include raw 1024-dim vector embedding

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the scope of the returned payload, which is meaningful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about what happens when the ID does not exist, permissions, or whether the embedding flag changes payload size beyond the schema note.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler and no restatement of the tool name. It is efficient, though "details" is slightly generic where a hint about response shape would be more informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys roughly what comes back, which is the main gap it needs to fill. It remains incomplete on failure behavior and on how this get differs from other retrieval siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both id and include_embedding documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter.

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?

A specific verb and resource are named: "Retrieve details of a celestial body," with the returned content sketched out (structured themes, associated star system/cosmic structure). It is clearly distinct from create/delete/update siblings, though it does not distinguish itself from other get_ tools such as get_star_system or get_cosmic_structure.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_celestial_bodies for browsing versus fetching a single body by ID. The only usage signal is the required id parameter in the schema.

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

Deploy Server